SYNTHORA domain-risk: domain risk verdict (LIMPIO/SOSPECHOSO/PELIGROSO) with score, confidence and evidence signals — age, infra, reputation crosses. Pre-interaction safety for agents. $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?
Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the verdict scale, score/confidence/evidence output, and the $0.03 USDC fee, which is a relevant side effect for an agent deciding whether to call the tool. No contradiction with 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?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the verdict and evidence signals before the use case and price. It is concise, though the brand prefix 'SYNTHORA domain-risk' partially duplicates the tool name and costs a small deduction.
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?
An output schema exists to explain return values, annotations cover safety, and the description adds the verdict categories, evidence signals, usage context, and cost. The main gap is the vague input semantics, but overall the definition is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke 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?
The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter details. The description does not clarify that 'input' should contain a domain or domain-related JSON; the schema's generic 'parametros del producto (JSON o texto)' remains ambiguous and is not supplemented.
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 it returns a domain risk verdict with specific categories (LIMPIO/SOSPECHOSO/PELIGROSO) and evidence signals, which clearly identifies the tool's resource and output. It distinguishes from sibling risk tools by the 'domain' focus and 'pre-interaction safety' positioning. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'assesses' or 'determines,' relying on implied evaluation.
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 'Pre-interaction safety for agents' gives a clear context for when to use this tool: before an agent interacts with a domain. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so an agent must infer when this tool is preferable to related risk tools like asset_risk or identity_risk.
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.
