SYRI — Stablecoin Yield Risk Index

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It faithfully discloses the mandatory payment, the exact USDC cost, the unusual response-to-supply behavior when unpaid, and the expected first response so the agent won't treat failure as an error.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It's compact and front-loaded with the most important detail (PAID and cost), then moves to response and payment workflow. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells what the response includes, what happens when payment, and how the agent should request the score. It does not spell out error states, but the payment gate is sufficient for a minimal 2-param call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter definitions are already complete. The description adds value by explaining that x_payment is an encoded x402 authorization needed to get the score, and gives example entity values beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SYRI risk score for a venue'), and names the outputs: risk band and 0-100 composite. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling status and listing tools without needing to know their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit operational guidance: the free call returns payment terms, paying via x402 with x_payment returns the score. It does not explicitly contrast against the status or listing tool, but the payment flow itself strongly signals when to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure weight. It adds the cost trait ('Free') and specifies the exact data points reported, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not describe response format or failure behavior, but for a simple status call the listed outputs cover the core behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no waste: the first packs in all output facts, and the second adds a targeted use-case hint. The leading 'Free' is brief and useful, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter status tool, the description adequately covers what the tool reports and when to use it. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by enumerating the reported fields, though exact response shape and possible network values remain unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters and 100% vacuous coverage, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses an active verb ('Reports') and names exactly what the tool returns: health, settlement network, number of scored venues, and data age. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings get_syri_score and list_syri_venues, which return scores and venue lists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Useful before depending on a score' gives a clear, concrete use case tied directly to the sibling get_syri_score. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it says the call is free, lists the data it returns, and states that unsupported venues return an error and are never charged. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or whether results are paginated, but the core behavior is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose, the returned data fields, and the key limit/error behavior. The information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless list endpoint, the description covers what the tool returns, the cost behavior, and failure behavior. It does not specify response format, but with no output schema present and a simple list operation, the remaining gaps are minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parametersable parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supplement. The baseline of 4 applies here; the description instead clarifies output fields and error semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is specific and actionable: it returns every venue RFS currently scores, including pricing, payment terms, and data freshness. It clearly identifies the resource and output kind, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_syri_score and get_syri_status tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use this to see the full set of supported venuescars, and venues outside that set will error. It implies when this tool is appropriate but does not explicitly state alternatives or when to use get_syri_score or get_syri_status instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.