SYNTHORA threat-exposure: external attack-surface score for any domain/host — exposure breakdown with deterministic evidence (historic IPs, open surfaces). $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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the output is deterministic, includes historic IPs and open surfaces, and the call costs $0.03 USDC x402 Base. This gives the agent additional behavioral expectations without contradicting 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?
The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes essential details about evidence type and cost. Every clause adds value, and there is no wasted wording.
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 an output schema present and clear annotations covering read-only, idempotent behavior, the description covers the core purpose, input domain, output evidence style, and pricing. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit usage alternatives, but for a simple one-parameter tool this is mostly 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% for the single 'input' parameter, but the schema description is generic ('parametros del producto (JSON o texto)'). The tool description adds that the input is a domain or host, which is useful, but it does not specify the exact expected format (e.g., plain text domain vs JSON field). Thus it meets the baseline but does not fully clarify parameter semantics.
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 that the tool provides an external attack-surface score for any domain or host, with a specific breakdown of exposure and deterministic evidence. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like domain_risk or asset_risk, which focus on different risk facets.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'any domain/host' but does not mention exclusions, conditions, or refer to sibling tools. An agent is left to infer usage context from the tool's name and purpose.
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.
