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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent. The description adds context that the tool is 'called through their seat' and that data comes 'as it is', implying no transformation. It also discloses that authCode is required for Grok, a specific behavioral requirement beyond annotations. This adds value without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is relatively short but includes a marketing-like phrase 'a live seat on The Wall (hosted by them)' and a registry URL that adds context but is not strictly necessary for calling the tool. The core purpose is stated first, but the additional context about read-only and auth is somewhat buried. The structure is adequate but not perfectly front-loaded.

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 screening tool with moderate complexity (5 params), the description covers the overall purpose and read-only nature, but lacks explicit guidance on how chain and interval affect results, and does not explain the return format (no output schema). Given the sibling tools are numerous, a bit more direction on selection would improve completeness. The authCode requirement is mentioned in schema but not in description, though that is covered in schema.

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 description coverage is low (20%) – only authCode has a description. The description itself does not explain the parameters. It lists categories in the text but does not explicitly map them to the type parameter. The schema has enums for type and interval, but the description does not elaborate on meaning of chain, limit, or interval beyond defaults. With only 1 of 5 parameters described, the description must compensate but does not.

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 clearly states it screens/ranks tokens by category, listing specific categories like trending, new, runners, graduating, kol, etc. This is a specific verb (screen/rank) on a resource (tokens) and enumerates expected categories, distinguishing it from siblings like orbitx_get_token or orbitx_crypto_scan. The phrase 'their data comes back as it is' further clarifies the nature of the tool.

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 explicitly notes it is a read-shaped tool only (refuses buy/sell/write), which is a strong usage hint. It also names the context (The Wall hosted by them) and mentions authentication requirements for Grok via authCode. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like orbitx_get_signals or orbitx_search, but the category-based screening purpose is clear enough to infer.

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