cerberus-index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool costs money ($0.002 USDC) and that it returns blocklist status and historical detection outcomes. However, it does not mention idempotency, caching, or any side effects. The cost disclosure is a strong positive, but other behavioral aspects are missing.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose, price, and a pointer to feedback. No unnecessary words or repetition. It front-loads the main function.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does (reputation check for an XRPL issuer), what it returns (blocklist status and historical outcomes), and cost. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention if the issuer must be a valid XRPL account.

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 only parameter is 'issuer', with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating it is an 'XRPL issuer', but does not specify the expected format (e.g., r-address). For a single parameter, this provides adequate context but could be more precise.

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 checks reputation for an XRPL issuer, specifying 'blocklist status + historical detection outcomes.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_xrpl_token' or 'submit_feedback', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this over others.

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 mentions calling 'submit_feedback (free) to request it' if something is missing, and hints at a cost of $0.002 USDC, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no direct statement of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It details that it may reject inputs (clawback/global-freeze) and checks various properties. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and listing checks in a clear manner. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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 2 params and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it checks, verdicts, and price. It could benefit from output structure details but is adequate.

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 0%, but the description explains that 'currency' may be a 3-char or 40-char hex code. While 'issuer' format is not explicitly stated, the description adds meaningful value 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 clearly states it provides a 'Live safety verdict for an XRPL token' and lists specific checks (clawback, blackhole, NoFreeze, pool depth, etc.) and verdicts. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'submit_feedback' as an alternative for missing info.

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 mentions a cost ($0.005 USDC) and suggests using 'submit_feedback' if something is missing. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies it's for token safety checks.

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?

Mentions ordering and max count, but 'Price: $0.010 USDC' is ambiguous (cost per call or per pool?). No annotations, so description carries burden but omits read-only hint, authentication needs, and side effects.

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?

Short but includes a potentially confusing price statement. The submit_feedback reference is useful but could be more 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?

Covers basic functionality and fallback, but lacks detail on return values, cost semantics, and prerequisites. No output schema to compensate.

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?

Single parameter 'limit' with 0% schema description coverage; description does not explain its meaning or usage beyond the schema default.

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 the tool returns recently detected XRPL AMM pools, sorted newest first with a max of 100. This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_feedback and check_issuer_reputation.

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?

Provides context for when to use (to see new pools) and suggests submit_feedback for missing data. Lacks explicit exclusions but sufficient for the simple function.

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 tool's inputs (XRP amount, token identity) and outputs (tokens out, prices, impact). However, it does not clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the quote is real-time versus cached. The mention of a cost adds behavioral context, but it is ambiguous.

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-loaded with the core purpose. The inclusion of 'Price: $0.001 USDC' is somewhat extraneous but does not significantly bloat the text. The call to action for submit_feedback is a useful addition. Overall, it is efficient.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks details on parameter formats, response structure, and edge cases, making it only moderately complete for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

Input schema has three parameters (issuer, currency, xrp_in) with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies issuer and currency identify the token and xrp_in is the swap amount, but it does not explicitly define each parameter or explain their roles, leaving significant ambiguity for the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Quote an XRP->token swap against the live XLS-30 AMM pool' and explicitly lists outputs (tokens out, spot vs effective price, price impact). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_issuer_reputation and get_new_pools, which serve different functions.

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 mentions a price of $0.001 USDC, which may hint at cost implications, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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