SYNTHORA asset-risk: geoint risk verdict by zone (gibraltar, bab-el-mandeb, bosphorus, algeciras...) or lat/lon+bbox — confidence measured by AGREEMENT between independent sources, discrepancies declared (the moat). $0.03 USDC x402 Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | parametros del producto (JSON o texto) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, the description discloses that confidence is derived from agreement between independent sources and that discrepancies are surfaced ('the moat'). It also reveals cost and payment context ('$0.03 USDC x402 Base'), which annotations do not carry.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource, then input forms, methodology, and price. The brand prefix and 'the moat' phrasing add minor fluff but do not obscure the core 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-only tool with an output schema, the description covers what goes into 'input', how confidence is computed, and the cost. It is missing an explicit coordinate syntax example, but the tool can likely be called successfully with the provided clues.
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?
Although schema coverage is high, the schema's 'input' description is generic Spanish text ('parametros del producto (JSON o texto)'). The description adds the actual accepted semantic forms: named zones (gibraltar, bab-el-mandeb, bosphorus, algeciras...) or lat/lon+bbox. It stops short of defining the exact JSON syntax.
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 ('asset-risk') and outcome ('geoint risk verdict') with clear input scopes: named zones or lat/lon+bbox. It is distinctly a location-based risk evaluator among geospatial siblings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate from.
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 'by zone ... or lat/lon+bbox' implies when to use it: when a geographic asset-risk verdict is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tools are alternatives, such as chokepoint_risk or shipping_alpha.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The Polymarket/resolution cluster alone has eight tools (dispute_risk, market_resolution, resolution_source_feed, resolution_verdict, polymarket_resolution_watch, polymarket_odds_movers, polymarket_whales, insider_radar) with heavily overlapping responsibilities, and several risk-verdict tools also blur together. Descriptions clarify somewhat, but an agent would frequently need to read full details to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
Nearly all tools use lowercase snake_case noun-phrase names like asset_risk and sanctions_screen. A few one-word compounds (codeaudit, macrobundle, txintent) and varying prefixes break the pattern slightly, but the overall style is consistent and readable.
30 tools exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy even for a multi-domain data marketplace. Many tools are individually sold data products, and several could be consolidated — particularly the resolution/verdict/source-feed group.
The surface covers the stated domains well: maritime/chokepoint risk, Polymarket resolution and trading signals, DeFi/macro data, and transaction/identity security. Minor gaps include no registry-list/query companion to registry_watch and no historical time-series endpoint for risk verdicts, but core workflows are not dead-ended.
