agi-scorecard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses notable data behaviors: calls are logged as falsifiable triggers before outcomes and misses are never deleted. This goes beyond a simple return description, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only or side-effect-free behavior, which is assumable from the 'get' verb.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with essential information. The first sentence establishes the tool's unique value proposition, and the second details return content and coverage. Every phrase adds meaning without redundancy.

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, the description fully explains what the tool returns (scored count, hit rate, each call with date, verdict, survival odds, English summary). It also covers the scope of data, making the tool's behavior clear enough for an agent to decide and use effectively.

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 baseline for such tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema confirms no arguments are required.

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 retrieving the SunWatch market-call ledger, a specific resource. It details the content (graded calls, hit rates) and distinguishes it from generic market data tools by its unique pre-registration and immutable record-keeping.

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 when to use the tool by listing the domains and markets covered (memory/storage, optical, robotics, space, energy, crypto; US/HK/China A-shares). It does not explicitly call out sibling tools or exclusions, but the scope makes usage conditions clear.

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 extent of the search (all pages and tools, specific sub-sites, English/Chinese) and the output structure, which is useful. It does not mention potential limitations like result ordering or pagination, but for a search tool, the read-only behavior is implied and the described scope is sufficient.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action 'Search' and immediately specifies scope and output, containing no unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what is searched and what is returned. A small gap is the absence of any mention of result limits or ordering, but this is not critical for a basic search tool.

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 description covers the only parameter ('query') with a basic description. The tool description does not add extra semantics such as query format, search syntax, or expected input patterns, 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 clearly states the tool searches every page and tool across specified domains and sub-sites, and explicitly lists return fields (titles, descriptions, URLs). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch specific records.

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 usage for general site-wide searches, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear from the scope, but there are no stated alternatives or exclusions.

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