synthora-x402

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'signed verdict' output and payment/rate limits (pay-per-call, free calls). However, it does not reveal other behavioral traits such as external API calls, data retention, or error handling. The transparency is moderate.

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 concise, with a single coherent sentence followed by a bracketed note for additional context (payment model). No redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core 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?

The tool lacks an output schema, but the description only mentions 'signed verdict' without detailing the return structure (e.g., format, fields). Given the complexity of sanctions screening, the description should specify what the verdict contains (e.g., matched lists, risk level). Additionally, parameter requirements are ambiguous (both optional? but likely one needed). Incomplete for safe 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 50%: one parameter ('wallet') has a description ('your Base address for free-tier'), the other ('address') has none. The tool description adds 'pass `wallet` for 3 free calls' but does not clarify the 'address' parameter's role or relationship to 'wallet'. Thus, the description adds minimal 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 the tool screens wallets/entities against specific sanctions and AML lists (OFAC, UN, EU, UK), with a 'signed verdict' output. This is a specific verb and resource combination, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'address_risk_score' or 'contract_safety_check' which cover different risk assessments.

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 payment model and free calls for the 'wallet' parameter, giving some context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., 'address_risk_score') or state prerequisites. The guidance is implied but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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 full burden. It mentions 'verdict' and pay-per-call but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, authorization requirements, or limits (e.g., rate limits). The billing note hints at cost but leaves behavioral details vague.

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 concise with two sentences, no filler. The first sentence clearly states purpose, and the second provides billing context. It is front-loaded with the most important information, though the billing note could be streamlined.

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 no output schema and 2 params, the description covers the primary use case. However, it does not specify the verdict format (e.g., boolean, detailed report) or whether the tool requires a specific network (Base is mentioned but not enforced). Adequate but leaves 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 coverage is 50%: 'wallet' has a description linking to free calls, but 'address' lacks any description. The overall description adds context that the tool evaluates a contract address, partially compensating. However, the missing parameter description limits understanding of required input.

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 explicitly states the tool checks on-chain contract safety for honeypot, rug, hidden-mint, and owner-privileges, which aligns with the tool name 'contract_safety_check'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'address_risk_score' which likely focuses on addresses rather than contracts.

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 includes billing information but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'address_risk_score' or 'agent_pretrade_safety'. It does not mention prerequisites or when to avoid this tool.

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 full burden. It discloses the data source (CoinGecko) and monetization (pay-per-call, free calls). However, it omits behavioral details like rate limits, error handling, or history length. The description adds useful context beyond 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 no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the monetization note is brief and clear.

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 two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify the 'id' parameter. Its omission leaves the tool incomplete for an agent to use correctly. The cost context is helpful but insufficient.

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 50% (only wallet described). The description adds meaning for wallet (free calls) but does not explain the 'id' parameter, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The schema itself also lacks a description for id.

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 returns crypto price and history from CoinGecko, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'defi_data' or 'onchain_wallet_balance' that might also provide pricing 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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a pay-per-call model and free calls with wallet, but does not state prerequisites or 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?

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It mentions a payment model and free calls but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what triggers costs, or any limits beyond the free tier. Behavioral traits are insufficiently explained.

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 very concise with two short sentences. However, the second sentence is commercial information that could be placed elsewhere. No wasted words, but structure could be improved.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and payment context. It lacks details on what data is returned (e.g., specific TVL metrics or protocols), which is important for tool selection.

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 one parameter 'wallet' described as 'your Base address for free-tier'. The description adds context by linking it to free calls ('pass `wallet` for 3 free calls'), slightly enriching the schema but not significantly.

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?

Description states 'DeFi protocol / TVL data', clearly indicating the tool provides DeFi-related data. This distinguishes it from siblings like crypto_price or address_risk_score, though it lacks specificity on which protocols or metrics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a pay-per-call model but does not advise on selection criteria relative to other data tools.

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; description does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the wallet parameter implies. Only states call action.

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?

Single sentence but omits essential details. Under-informative rather than 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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage. Description fails to explain return format, error handling, or usage of nested objects.

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%; description only explains the 'id' parameter indirectly via catalog reference. No explanation for 'body' or 'wallet' parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calls any SYNTHORA x402 endpoint by catalog ID, and references synthora_catalog for ID lookup. Distinct from siblings like synthora_catalog.

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?

Explicitly references synthora_catalog to obtain the ID, implying prior use of that tool. Does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools but context 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'live, generated -- no fixed count' indicates the catalog is dynamic and not static. However, it does not disclose the return structure, any potential rate limits, or confirm read-only status explicitly, leaving some gaps.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key behavior. No wasted words; every part 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the response contains. It says 'catalog of verifiable data/intel endpoints' but does not specify the format or fields of the returned items. For a simple listing tool, it is partially complete, but the lack of return detail prevents a higher score.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter details that would be irrelevant.

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 function: 'List the full SYNTHORA x402 catalog of verifiable data/intel endpoints.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('catalog') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are individual endpoints, by being the comprehensive catalog listing.

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: when you need an overview of all available verifiable data/intel endpoints, use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the contrast with sibling tools (specific endpoints) makes the context clear. Lacks explicit exclusions, so not a 5.

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