Farm Distress Mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ('PAID $0.02') and that it is an early-warning/monitoring tool, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not state side effects, output shape, or whether any state changes occur beyond the payment requirement.

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 extremely short and front-loads the payment and core purpose. The standalone 'PAID $0.02.' is slightly cryptic, but it does not waste words and the key distinction is delivered in one sentence.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the domain and payment requirement but does not explain what the returned result looks like or how an agent should consume it. This is a meaningful gap since the output schema is absent.

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 100%, so the x402Payment parameter is already fully documented. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the payment amount, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific function: bad-debt/insolvency early-warning for positions that are liquidatable but unseized. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling farm_liquidations by explicitly saying 'NOT being liquidated', making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool: when you care about positions where value is leaking and liquidation has not yet happened. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the boundary against farm_liquidations is strongly implied.

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?

Discloses that it is 'PAID $0.02' and indicates data source ('from the fleet's live cross-venue liquidation observation'). It does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free behavior, but the analytics nature and payment note are transparent enough.

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?

Description is moderately concise but includes redundant phrasing like 'where it's crowded vs where there's room to win' and 'From the fleet's live cross-venue liquidation observation' which could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Provides sufficient context for the tool's purpose, payment requirement, and the kind of output (concentration, top share, verdict). Without an output schema, this is enough for an agent to know what to expect, though an example or more specific output format would improve completeness.

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 covers the single parameter thoroughly, including encoding, purpose, and usage flow. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it provides liquidator competition analytics, listing specific metrics (concentration, top-liquidator share, per-venue verdict) and the goal ('where it's crowded vs where there's room to win'). This distinguishes it from siblings like farm_liquidations or farm_mesh.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses on what it does but provides no guidance on conditions that would make this tool preferable over, say, farm_liquidations or farm_summary.

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 full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01 only on change, free on no-change), the cursor behavior (each call returns a fresh cursor), and that it is a delta/diff operation. It doesn't explicitly state read-only, but that's strongly implied by the polling nature. It could mention the baseline behavior when omitting 'since,' but that's in the schema.

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 zero waste. The critical cost note is front-loaded, then the diff mechanics. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

It covers the key aspects: cost model, cursor usage, and the diff categories (added, worsened, resolved). It lacks an explicit description of the baseline output when 'since' is omitted, but that's in the schema. The tool is simple enough that this description is nearly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds usage context for 'since' (pass it to get changes) and clarifies the cursor is reused, but the payment param's workflow is already fully documented in the schema. No significant extra meaning is added 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?

The description specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Changed-only distress diff' — it returns only what moved since a cursor. It also distinguishes itself from the whole-index alternatives by saying 'instead of re-buying the whole index,' which sets it apart from sibling tools like farm_distress or farm_summary.

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?

It explains when to use it: for cheap polling, passing a cursor to get deltas. It mentions the payment condition (only charged on change) and contrasts with 're-buying the whole index,' implying when not to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal several important traits: the tool is paid ($0.01), it returns a ranked index, and it is cross-chain and exclusive in data coverage. However, it does not disclose the two-step payment requirements flow, output format, thresholds for 'near-liquidation', or any auth or rate-limit behavior, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important facts: payment, ranking, and scope. The second sentence adds a differentiation claim but is somewhat redundant with 'Sole-source.' Overall it is efficient with no meaningful bloat.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply more contextual detail than it does. It names the output fields but omits the payment flow, response shape, pagination behavior, and the criteria defining 'near-liquidation.' This is insufficient for a paid data tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents chain, limit, and x402Payment. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond listing output fields that are not parameters. This meets the baseline but does not compensate beyond it.

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 defines the tool as a 'Ranked cross-chain liquidation-distress index' and enumerates the returned fields (borrower, venue, chain, health factor, debt, collateral), so the core purpose is identifiable. It is not a tautology and provides concrete resource scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling farm_liquidations tool, stopping just short of full clarity.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use farm_distress versus alternatives such as farm_liquidations or farm_health. The 'Sole-source' claim implies uniqueness but does not state a decision criterion or exclusion. The paid nature is flagged, but the actual invocation flow is left entirely to the schema and inference.

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 full burden and does it exceptionally well: it discloses the $0.05 cost, non-custodial nature, absence of signing, absence of fund movement, and the decision output. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond what any structured field provides.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: cost is front-loaded, the tool's scope is summarized, and the critical safety caveats ('Signs nothing, moves no funds') are explicit. 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?

The description covers purpose, key outputs, cost, and side effects, which is substantial given there is no output schema and no annotations. It is missing explicit guidance on the x402 payment flow (described in the schema) and input semantics, so it is not fully complete on its own.

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 only 25% (only x402Payment has a schema description), so the description must compensate for the other parameters. It does not explain chain, venue, borrower, nor the two-call x402 payment handshake, adding almost no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource ('a liquidation target') and enumerates concrete outputs (liquidatable, repayable amount, gross seize bonus, estimated net after gas, go/no-go), which clearly distinguishes it as a quote/economics tool. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'quote' or 'evaluate' and does not name a sibling alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 'go/no-go' phrasing and 'Signs nothing, moves no funds' imply this is a pre-execution decision tool, and the non-custodial note rules out actual execution. However, it never names alternatives such as farm_liquidations or states the explicit conditions for choosing this tool over them, leaving usage selection to inference.

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the paid nature of the call and the returned data. It does not mention whether the call is read-only, whether there are rate limits, or what side effects might occur; the two-step x402 payment flow is only explained in the parameter schema, not the tool description.

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?

One front-loaded sentence leads with the critical cost signal ('PAID $0.005') and then packs outputs, units, and chains with no wasted words. It is concise without sacrificing the information an agent needs.

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 lightweight paid info tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers payment, return values, units, and the chain set. The two-step payment flow is not stated in the tool description, but the parameter schema covers it, so the overall definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the single parameter x402Payment already has a detailed explanation of the omit-then-retry payment flow. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource—cross-chain gas intelligence—and states the exact outputs: current gas price in wei and gwei, plus the USD cost of a typical liquidation transaction, across four named chains. This distinguishes it immediately from every farm_* sibling, none of which advertise gas data.

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 'cross-chain gas intelligence' phrasing implies the tool should be used when gas prices or liquidation-tx USD costs are needed, and the upfront 'PAID $0.005' warns that it is a paid call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools among the 14 farm_* siblings.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is reported but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a health check, one would expect it to be safe, but that is not stated. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the listed fields.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('FREE service health') and lists the key attributes. It is efficient with no fluff. It could arguably be expanded slightly to include usage guidance, but as a standalone statement it is appropriately sized and structured.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is expected to carry more weight. It lists what is covered (network, uptime, supported venues, exec status) but does not explain the format of the response, how to interpret 'exec status', or any caveats. While it is minimally complete for a simple health check, the lack of any mention of output structure or additional context leaves some gaps.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. This is a baseline 4 for a parameterless tool, as there is nothing further the description could clarify.

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 identifies the tool as a health status check for the service, listing specific aspects (network, uptime, supported venues, exec status). It is distinguishable from siblings like farm_baddebt or farm_summary, which imply different concerns, though it doesn't name an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check'. Overall, the purpose is clear and specific.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large set of sibling tools (farm_*, each with distinct functions), the description does not explain scenarios where health is the appropriate query, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a $0.01 paid gate and hints at output ('exact names'), but it does not explain the call flow, whether the operation is read-only, what happens on payment failure, or what the response contains beyond names. The payment-requirements flow is only visible inside the parameter description, not the tool description.

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 short and front-loads the cost, but it reads as cryptic fragments joined by em dashes rather than clear sentences. The phrase 'The tightest, most actionable slice' is marketing-like and does not add operational clarity. It is concise but not well-structured for an agent that needs unambiguous guidance.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return shape and invocation behavior more fully. It gives domain context and implies names as output, but it does not state the response structure, the payment requirement workflow, or how the route/price is determined. An agent would still need to inspect the parameter description and infer much of the behavior.

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 100% for the single parameter, and the parameter description already explains the x402Payment header and the omit-to-get-requirements flow. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific domain slice — the HOT band with health factor 1.00–1.08, Morpho-first — and implies the tool returns names, but it never states an action verb like 'list' or 'fetch'. The phrase 'the exact names the fleet's race bots recheck every ~2s' suggests a list output, yet the purpose remains associative and jargon-heavy rather than plainly stated.

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 implies when this tool is relevant: for the tightest, most actionable health-factor band that bots recheck frequently. It does not explicitly contrast this with siblings like farm_liquidations, farm_targets, or farm_distress, nor does it state when not to use it. Context is present but the selection guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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?

The description discloses a payment requirement ('PAID $0.02') and indicates on-chain interaction, which are important behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but the nature of the data (events, counts) suggests a query operation. Given no annotations, the description partially covers transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that packs essential information: data source, venues, output structure, and cost. No redundant words or vague phrases; it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description gives a solid overview of the tool's purpose and output, sufficient for an agent to decide whether to use it. It does not cover edge cases or error handling, but none are expected for a read-only query tool. The payment caveat is mentioned, though the detailed payment flow is left to the 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?

The description does not explain the parameters 'limit' or 'x402Payment'. Only the schema provides a description for x402Payment, and 'limit' has no description. Schema coverage is 50%, yet the description fails to compensate by clarifying how the parameters affect the output or the payment flow, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving recent on-chain liquidation events across specific venues (Moonwell, Aave v3, Morpho Blue). It specifies the output components (actual events, cross-venue leaderboard, per-venue counts), making it distinct from sibling tools like farm_health or farm_mispricing.

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 provides clear context on what the tool returns, allowing an agent to infer when to use it (when needing liquidation events). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the specificity of the output makes the usage context unambiguous.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate the paid nature and aggregated scope, but it does not mention the two-step payment flow (omit header to receive requirements, then call again) or what happens on invalid payment. The parameter schema covers that flow, but the description itself adds limited behavioral depth.

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 short and front-loads the key facts: price, one-call aggregation, and scope. The phrase 'priced below the sum of the parts' is slightly promotional and adds little operational value, so it is not perfectly concise.

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 single-parameter paid tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the metrics included, the cost, and the advantage over alternatives. There is no output schema, so some details about the exact response format or error behavior are not specified, but the low parameter complexity keeps this from being a critical gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about pricing and route-specific payment, but it does not add meaning about the x402Payment parameter beyond what the schema already explains.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it returns a cross-chain risk snapshot combining distress, venue stress, gas, and bad-debt in one call. This clearly distinguishes farm_mesh from its more specialized sibling 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 phrase 'One round trip instead of five' clearly implies the tool should be used when several risk metrics are needed together rather than calling the individual sibling tools. It does not, however, explicitly say when NOT to use it, such as when only a single metric is needed.

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 full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the payment requirement ('PAID $0.02'), the selection criterion ('health factor ≤ 1'), and the time-sensitivity of the result ('actionable-this-block set'). It stops short of describing the response format, but the disclosed traits are substantive.

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 extremely short and front-loads the most decision-relevant fact ('PAID $0.02'). Every fragment earns its place and there is no fluff, though the telegraphic style is denser than necessary.

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 single-parameter paid endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to select the tool but not enough to fully anticipate the response payload or the two-step payment flow without relying on the parameter description. Given the simple interface, it is adequate with clear gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents the x402Payment flow thoroughly. The tool description adds only the 'PAID $0.02' context, which is useful but not additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource: 'Positions liquidatable RIGHT NOW' with a precise definition ('health factor ≤ 1') and scope ('across the fleet's chains/venues'). It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like farm_liquidations, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 'RIGHT NOW' and 'actionable-this-block set' imply this tool is for immediate liquidation opportunities, and 'PAID $0.02' signals a cost condition. However, no alternatives are named, and there is no explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools such as farm_liquidations or farm_distress.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read-only listing operation ('List'), discloses the fresh-or-free guarantee, and mentions payment mechanics, which is useful beyond a bare catalog description. It could add explicit statements about auth requirements or response shape, but the core behavior is clear for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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, tightly packed with useful information and no filler. The main resource is stated first, followed by a colon-delimited list of included details, and the final standalone 'Free' adds cost context without disrupting flow.

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 simple zero-parameter catalog tool with no output schema, the description covers the key things an agent needs: what the listing includes, pricing, guarantee, and payment path. It is slightly thin on whether access or authentication is required to use the storefront itself, but the core selection context is complete.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, but it compensates by describing exactly what kind of data the returned product list will contain, which is the relevant semantic information for an agent.

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 states a specific action ('List every data product on sale') and a clear resource (the storefront catalog). It enumerates the catalog's contents (routes, prices, I/O shapes, guarantees, payment), which distinguishes it from sibling farm tools that deliver specific data products rather than catalog them.

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 implied use is clear: call this when you need to browse available data products and their terms. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. The description relies on the agent inferring that farm_storefront is the catalog while siblings are the actual data endpoints.

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 full burden, and it does reasonably well: it discloses that the tool is free, cross-chain, and what metrics will be in the summary. The read-only nature is strongly implied by the word 'summary,' though it is not stated outright.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('FREE cross-chain distress summary') and then enumerates the concrete output fields in a compact colon list. The second sentence, 'A free taste of the paid index,' is somewhat redundant with the initial 'FREE' but adds useful positioning context.

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 summary tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the scope (cross-chain), the content (positions, liquidatable count, tightest health factor, per-feed status), and the freemium constraint. It could go further on what 'per-feed status' means or how the data is sourced, but nothing critical is missing for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds value by describing what the tool will compute and return.

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 states a specific resource (cross-chain distress summary) and the exact data it returns: positions tracked, liquidatable count, tightest health factor, and per-feed status. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like farm_health or farm_liquidations, which likely target one of those aspects in depth.

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 'FREE' and 'free taste of the paid index' wording implies this is the lightweight entry point for a broad distress overview, and the list of summary contents implies when it is appropriate. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use it versus farm_distress, farm_health, or farm_liquidations.

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 are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the paid nature ('PAID $0.02'), the data source ('public venue params'), and that the ranking uses GROSS rather than net bonus. It does not state the return format, pagination behavior, or whether the call has any side effects, which is a meaningful gap for a paid tool.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded: cost first, then the ranked purpose, then the use-case framing. Every phrase contributes information and there is no fluff. The standalone 'PAID $0.02' fragment is structurally unusual but earns its place as a critical cost signal.

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 paid tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives, how chain/limit/minBonusUsd affect results, and how the x402 payment flow proceeds; it explains none of these. The x402 field is documented in the schema, but the description itself provides almost no invocation guidance. An agent familiar with the domain could use it, but it is not self-sufficient.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to explain chain, limit, and minBonusUsd, but it does not address them by name. It does define the underlying bonus metric ('debt × close-factor × venue bonus'), which helps interpret minBonusUsd, but chain filtering and limit behavior remain undocumented in both the schema and description.

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 states that the tool returns liquidation targets ranked by GROSS seize-bonus USD and gives the exact ranking formula, so the deliverable is clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but 'Liquidation targets ranked by...' and 'ready funnel' make the intended output unmistakable. The specific ranking criterion also distinguishes it from vaguely similar siblings like farm_liquidations.

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?

'A ready funnel of the biggest opportunities' implies this is for surfacing top liquidation candidates, and 'PAID $0.02' warns about cost before calling. However, the description does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer farm_liquidations, farm_hot, or farm_storefront instead. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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. It adds a payment requirement/cost ('PAID $0.01') and outlines what data will be returned, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or failure modes, leaving the safety profile implicit.

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 compact and front-loads the payment fact, followed by a dense but mostly valuable metric list. There is no filler, though the run-on comma-separated output list could be structured more cleanly.

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?

It lists the key output fields, which is critical because there is no output schema, and it states the venue/chain granularity. However, it does not describe the response shape, grouping, or usage boundaries, and with no annotations the read-only nature is left unstated.

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% and the schema already explains the two-step x402Payment flow. The description adds only the fee amount, which is useful context but not additional invocation semantics, so it meets the baseline.

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 names a specific resource scope ('cross-venue lending stress') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (positions at risk, debt at risk, liquidatable count, health factor). It lacks an explicit verb and does not name sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the purpose is concrete.

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 implies a use case: when a cross-venue/chain lending stress snapshot is needed. It provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives among the many farm_* siblings, so an agent must infer when this is the right endpoint.

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?

The 'PAID $0.01' disclosure surfaces a critical behavior that is not in annotations, and listing health factor and distress score gives a sense of the output. However, it does not state the two-step x402 payment flow, whether the operation is read-only, or what 'at-risk' is defined against; with no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.

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?

A single dense sentence, with the cost flag front-loaded and each clause adding scope, ranking, or output detail. There is no filler or repetition.

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 paid tool with undocumented numeric parameters and no output schema, this is too thin: an agent still needs to know the semantics of limit and minUsd, the exact payment call flow, and the output shape beyond two named fields. The x402Payment schema covers part of the flow, but the description itself leaves the invocation ambiguous.

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 only describes x402Payment; limit and minUsd are bare, and schema coverage is 33%. The description's 'ranked by size' hints at filtering by USD size, but it never explains what limit or minUsd do or how they interact, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete resource ('biggest at-risk borrow positions'), scope ('every chain/venue the fleet watches'), ranking, and output fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like farm_distress or farm_baddebt, whose names suggest overlapping concepts.

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 phrasing implies when to use it—when you need the largest at-risk borrow positions across the fleet—but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives. In a sibling group with farm_distress, farm_baddebt, and farm_liquidations, an agent has to infer where the boundaries lie.

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