cp0x public data

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that distributions are valued at today's token prices, implying dynamic/price-sensitive output, and that it includes every distribution with token amounts. It does not describe output structure or rate limits, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, then appends a clear usage sentence. It is efficient overall, though the long content list in the first sentence could be slightly easier to scan if structured separately.

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 a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description explains both the content scope and the user questions that should trigger it. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers what an agent needs to select and call the tool correctly.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool, and nothing in the description is needed to clarify inputs.

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 informational resource—cp0x's identity, mission, values, sites, channels, 2025 figures, and every token distribution—so an agent knows exactly what content this tool provides. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_* and get_* tools, which focus on open-source items, deals, races, leaderboards, or x402 resources.

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 gives explicit user-question triggers: asking what cp0x is, what it gave users, or where to find its sites and channels. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, but the stated triggers are specific enough to route most queries correctly.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include both declared and observed restrictions, which is useful, but it does not add richer behavioral context such as return shape, pagination, or error 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?

The description is two efficient sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds usage context without redundant framing or wasted language.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify how it relates to the similar sibling list_restricted_interfaces.

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 both protocol and country. The description notes that country is optional but adds no formatting or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: read declared and observed geo-restrictions for a DeFi interface. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling list_restricted_interfaces, which appears closely related.

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 explicitly says to use this when checking a protocol's interface restrictions, optionally for a country. That gives clear context, but it does not state when to use a sibling tool instead or any exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include a deal description, races, and referral-linked URLs, which is genuinely useful given no output schema exists. It says nothing about behavior on an unknown slug, rate limits, or referral-code handling.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns followed by the usage condition. No padding or redundant phrasing; every clause carries information.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key missing piece – roughly what comes back (details plus referral-coded links). Edge behavior such as a stale or unknown slug is not addressed, but that is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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 slug parameter is documented in the schema as coming from the cp0x catalog with a 100-char max. The description only restates that the slug must be known, adding nothing beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a cp0x deal") and even names the payload fields returned (description and races), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_deals, leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

"Use this when a deal slug is known and its full details are needed" gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly excludes discovery-only cases. No alternative (e.g. list_deals for finding slugs) is named and no when-not case is stated, 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that the response includes column definitions alongside rows (important since there is no output schema), but says nothing about the external-data dependency implied by openWorldHint, or about row ordering/pagination.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose plus the returned column definitions are front-loaded before the usage clause.

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 read-only, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (leaderboard plus column definitions) and when it applies. Minor gaps remain around external data source and result ordering, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 slug, race_code and top are already fully documented, including defaults and the 1-100 maximum. The phrase 'for a known deal and race' loosely maps to slug/race_code but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a cp0x race leaderboard') plus the notable extra it returns ('its column definitions'), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_races. It does not differentiate against other potential per-race readers explicitly, but the verb+resource 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?

'Use this when viewing standings for a known deal and race' implies the prerequisite that slug and race_code are already known, hinting that discovery belongs to list_deals/list_races. However, it never names those alternatives or states when not to use it, so the routing is inferred rather than spelled out.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only additional detail is that the returned links embed a cp0x referral code, which is mild context but not a behavioral disclosure.

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, zero padding, with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the usage condition. 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does state what comes back — a referral code and link — which is the key missing piece an agent would otherwise lack. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations, this 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% and the schema is actually richer than the description, noting 'venue name or deal slug to match' while the description only says 'a named venue'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Find a venue's referral code and link in the cp0x catalog'), which is unambiguous. It doesn't name a sibling it competes with, though 'get_deal' is the nearest neighbour, so it stops 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?

'Use this when a user requests referral details for a named venue' gives a clear trigger condition tied to a single required parameter. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, but the sibling list contains no other referral tool to route against.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds only that the source is GitHub and the repos are public — no mention of result size, pagination, ordering, or whether the list is complete. Useful but thin on top of the 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?

Two short sentences with the resource named first and the usage trigger second; no filler or marketing language. Minor repetition of 'cp0x' and 'interfaces/tools' across both sentences keeps it just short of maximally tight.

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?

A simple read-only listing tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema; the description says what the returned items are (repositories of permissionless DeFi interfaces and tools) and their source. Only the filtering behavior of 'kind' and any result-size characteristics go unmentioned, which is minor for this shape of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the single 'kind' parameter carries its own description and default, and the enum values (interface, project) map directly onto the description's phrasing. The description never mentions the filter, so it adds nothing beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb and resource — listing cp0x's public open-source repositories from GitHub — and narrows the content to 'permissionless DeFi interfaces and tools.' It partially separates itself from siblings like list_restricted_interfaces and list_cp0x_x402_resources, but never explicitly acknowledges the overlap between 'interfaces' here and the restricted/managed variants.

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?

'Use this when looking for cp0x interfaces, tools or source code' gives an implied trigger condition, but no when-not conditions and no named alternative. Given a sibling literally called list_restricted_interfaces, an agent could plausibly be unsure which to call, and the description does not resolve that.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include prices and tags, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or what an empty result means.

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 tight sentences with the resource and payload front-loaded, followed by the usage trigger. The second sentence slightly restates the tool name's subject but still earns its place as the when-to-use cue.

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-optional-parameter read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, payload hints, and usage. Only minor gaps remain around result shape and volume.

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 single 'tag' parameter is documented in the schema. The description reinforces its purpose ('filtering them by tag') but adds no format or matching semantics beyond what the schema already says, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List cp0x x402 resources') and adds what the results contain ('with prices and tags'). It's clear against generic siblings, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from list_x402_facilitators, which an agent could confuse it with.

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?

'Use this when finding available cp0x x402 resources or filtering them by tag' gives a clear triggering context. It lacks explicit exclusions or a named alternative (e.g., when to use list_x402_facilitators instead), so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that returned links carry a cp0x referral code — which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or what happens with limit=null, leaving the disclosure modest.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the usage cue follows immediately. "With optional venue filtering" slightly duplicates the schema but is justified as a scannable headline of capability.

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?

A simple zero-required-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema needs little more than purpose, usage cue, and a hint about returned data — all of which are present. Only an indication of result cardinality or ordering would materially improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both limit and query fully documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's "optional venue filtering" only loosely gestures at the query parameter and adds no syntax, matching, or ordering detail 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 and resource ("List cp0x referral deals") plus the scope qualifier (optional venue filtering), which cleanly separates it from the singular get_deal sibling. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the plural-list vs. single-get distinction is self-evident.

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?

"Use this when looking for deals by venue or browsing the deal catalog" gives a clear selection context and maps to the query parameter. No exclusions or pointers to alternative tools (e.g., get_deal for a known slug) are stated, so it falls 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return content (dates and prizes), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result limits. Useful but modest value beyond structured 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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste: purpose and return content first, usage condition second. 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?

A simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema; the description covers purpose and return fields, which is largely sufficient. Only minor gaps (ordering/pagination) remain, and those are low-stakes for a list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the slug ('Deal slug to filter races by') and status enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely restates these ('optionally for one deal', 'active or completed'), so 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('List cp0x races') and adds what is returned ('dates and prizes'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_deals or get_leaderboard. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is specific enough to be 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?

Gives a clear usage context ('when finding active or completed races') and notes the optional per-deal scoping ('optionally for one deal'). It does not explicitly name when-not to use it or point to a sibling alternative, but the trigger condition is 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?

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context that restrictions may be 'declared or observed' and come from the cp0x monitor, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a clear usage cue. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 one-parameter list tool with strong annotations and complete schema coverage, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it. It could add a little detail about what the returned interface list contains, but no output schema is present and the core behavior is clear.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema fully documents it as an ISO-3166 alpha-2 country code with a pattern and max length. The description says 'in a country' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: listing DeFi interfaces with declared or observed restrictions in a country. It distinguishes the plural list scope from the sibling check_interface_restrictions, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 clearly says to use the tool when identifying which interfaces the cp0x monitor reports as restricted in a country. It gives positive usage context but does not state exclusions or explicitly compare alternatives.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results include names and URLs from a static catalog, but says nothing about ordering, pagination or whether the catalog is exhaustive.

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 with zero filler; the resource and source are front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Every clause carries information.

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-argument list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is close to sufficient — it even hints at the returned fields (names and URLs). A brief note on result ordering or catalog scope would make it 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 and resource ('List x402 facilitators and their URLs') and names the data source (cp0x). An agent can distinguish it from list_cp0x_x402_resources by the resource noun, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two near-identical siblings.

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 sentence 'Use this when looking up facilitator names and endpoints in the cp0x catalog' gives an implied usage context, but offers no when-not guidance and no routing away from the closely named list_cp0x_x402_resources sibling.

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