hypernatt-terminal

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Words like 'catalog' and 'Free' imply read-only and non-destructive behavior, but no explicit mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus 'Free.' All key information is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

Tool is simple with one optional parameter. Description covers purpose, pricing, usage stats, and journeys. Could mention output format, but not critical given lack of output schema. 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% and the parameter 'locale' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

Clearly states it is a 'catalog of 15 terminal tools with prices, live usage stats, and journeys', which is a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes itself as the entry point among siblings by saying 'Start here'.

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 tells agent to 'Start here' and suggests 'Prefer get_trading_hub next', providing clear usage context. Does not include when-not-to-use but is sufficient as a starting point.

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 cost ($0.001), side effects (none), that HOLD is not charged, and return format variants (default summary vs full_payload). This provides good behavioral context.

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 dense but well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT WHEN, RETURNS, COST). It is not overly long and earns its content, though could be slightly more 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 three optional parameters, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, usage conditions, cost, side effects, and output variants. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning for parameters (e.g., full_payload returning per-leg detail) but mostly relies on schema. Baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: returning a real-time Mimo cycle signal (LONG/SHORT/HOLD) for BTC vault alignment. It distinguishes from siblings like get_mm_trap_state, providing a specific resource and verb.

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?

Explicit USE WHEN and NOT WHEN conditions are provided, including specific scenarios (vault bias, cycle_id, open PnL) and alternatives (get_mm_trap_state, hunt score alone). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings.

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 the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only, costs $0.001, and provides 'verdicts only'. However, it does not explain the payment flow (x402) or what happens on unpaid calls, nor does it describe 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?

Two concise sentences: the first lists what the tool returns, the second adds cost and disclaimer. No fluff, front-loaded with key 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only says 'Verdicts only' without specifying the output format (e.g., JSON structure, possible values). For a tool with no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to parse the response.

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 covers both parameters with full descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds context about the payment cost and read-only nature but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides.

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 provides BTC entry-quality flags with specific named indicators (fomo_block, anti_top_veto, etc.) and explicitly says it's read-only and not trade advice. This distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools that focus on other aspects.

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 like get_btc_usdc_signal or get_regime. The description mentions cost and read-only nature but not selection criteria.

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 description declares the tool is 'Read-only' and mentions a cost of $0.001, which adds behavioral transparency beyond the missing annotations. However, it does not elaborate on other traits such as payment mechanism or quota consumption, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 short but cryptic, listing acronyms without explanation. While front-loaded with the tool's focus ('BTC ignition / micro'), the lack of structure and clarity detracts from its effectiveness.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify the return format and structure. It only lists metrics without explaining how they are presented, leaving the agent without full context.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the two parameters (x_payment, agent_wallet) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context, receiving the baseline score of 3.

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 vaguely conveys that the tool provides BTC ignition/micro analysis including VID score, MRE entry score, vol spike, ADX RoC, and cooldown flag, but it does not use a clear verb+resource structure and fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_entry_quality.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_btc_usdc_signal, get_entry_quality). The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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?

Without annotations, description discloses read-only status ('Redacted, read-only'), side effects ('none'), cost ($0.001 flat via x402), and payment flow, but the term 'Redacted' could be further clarified.

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?

Highly efficient: uses bullet-like structure with '—' and colons, front-loads key outputs, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers return type, cost, side effects, alternatives, and references a guide. However, lacks detailed structure of the return object (e.g., field names and types) despite listing components.

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 description adds valuable context: x_payment includes instructions for first call vs. retry, and agent_wallet explains quota credit usage and skipping x402 when quota covers cost.

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 lists the specific data points returned (magnet score, OI build-up, long/short ratio, liquidation clusters, 1h/24h liquidations) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_trading_hub, get_mm_trap_state, get_mm_hunt_score.

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 states when to use ('need the full microstructure block'), when to prefer an alternative (get_trading_hub), and when not to use (trap/sweep/reclaim verdicts or short hunt narrative), with sibling tool names provided.

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 weight. It discloses cost ($0.001), side effects (none), and return fields. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or idempotent, leaving a minor gap.

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 clear USE WHEN/NOT WHEN structure that front-loads purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the return fields list could be more compact.

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 annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return fields, cost, and side effects. It lacks mention of error handling or idempotency but is otherwise complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score is 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 opens with a clear question defining the use case, states 'One-line liquidation pressure summary' as the core function, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings (get_mm_trap_state, get_liq_radar). This provides excellent purpose clarity.

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 states when to use ('quick hunt read, alert_level, magnet_bias') and when not to use ('full trap/sweep math' or 'raw clusters') with direct sibling tool names. This is exemplary 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?

Despite no annotations, it declares read-only, not trade advice, cost, side effects, and lists return fields, providing full transparency about behavior and side effects.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT WHEN, RETURNS, COST). Every sentence serves a purpose; no wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, it compensates by enumerating return fields. Parameter count low but fully covered. Complexity adequately addressed with usage context, cost, and behavior details.

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% but description adds valuable context beyond schema: first-call instructions for payment, quota-based skipping, and payment cost. Adds meaning without redundancy.

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 checks whether MM is trapping BTC and provides state information. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mm_hunt_score and get_liq_radar.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT WHEN' sections specify contexts for use and alternative tools (e.g., get_mm_hunt_score for one-line pressure, get_liq_radar for raw data).

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 description explicitly states the tool is read-only and includes cost ($0.001) and zoom functionality. Since annotations are absent, these details are valuable behavioral traits. However, it does not mention rate limits or data freshness.

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 (three fragments) and gets straight to the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., list), but every word 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?

The description lists the data returned (CVD, OB imbalance, etc.), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it does not explain how to specify the zoom level or time range, leaving ambiguity about usage. The parameters are for payment, not data 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (x_payment and agent_wallet). The description does not add any meaning to these parameters, instead focusing on the data output. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the parameters adequately.

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 provides BTC orderflow data (CVD, OB imbalance, icebergs, etc.) and is a read-only zoom tool. It directly addresses the 'get_orderflow' name and differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the exact metrics and asset.

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 use for retrieving BTC orderflow data but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_ta_snapshot or get_entry_quality. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are given.

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, description adds value by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and the cost ($0.001). It also lists what data is returned. Does not contradict any annotations. Only minor gap: no mention of rate limits, but overall transparent.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. First sentence lists return fields, second states cost and safe nature. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 parameters fully described, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. Could potentially mention how the data relates to other tools, but not necessary for basic usage. Score reflects good completeness for complexity.

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 schema already explains x_payment and agent_wallet. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the cost note is about the tool, not parameters. Baseline 3 is 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?

Clearly states what the tool does: returns BTC regime data including season/trend label, ADX, session bucket, and F32 structure zone. Differentiates from siblings by being specific to BTC regime (other siblings like get_ta_snapshot or get_entry_quality have different outputs).

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?

Indicates read-only and cost ($0.001), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_ta_snapshot. No exclusions or context for selection among siblings.

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?

Discloses side effects (none) and cost ($0.001 flat via x402). Describes return structure. Lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or payment failure behavior, but is transparent about key aspects given no 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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, returns, cost, side effects). Front-loaded key purpose. Slightly verbose with 'Agents MUST quote do_not_infer rules' but overall efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, usage guidelines, return structure, cost, side effects, and caveats. Lacks output schema but lists returned fields. Sufficient for an agent to decide and interpret results.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about payment options and output control but does not significantly elaborate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving top-3 historical regime matches for BTC microstructure with observed outcomes about 4 hours later. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing what it is not for (trade direction, live trap, sizing) and naming alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'USE WHEN: analogies / regime context only. NOT WHEN: trade direction (get_btc_usdc_signal), live trap (get_mm_trap_state), or sizing.' Also instructs agents not to treat similarity_pct as win probability, giving clear boundaries.

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 description declares it is read-only and notes a cost of $0.001, which are important behavioral traits. In absence of annotations, this provides sufficient transparency about side effects and resource usage.

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 extremely concise, fitting key information (tool output, usage context, cost, read-only) into a single sentence without unnecessary words. Every part 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?

Given the simple tool with fully described parameters, no output schema, and clear description, it covers all needed context: what it does, when to use, cost, and read-only nature. Nothing 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with full descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond noting the cost (which mildly relates to x_payment). Baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states it provides a BTC TA snapshot with specific indicators (RSI, MACD, etc.) and positions it as a zoom tool after get_trading_hub, distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools.

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 suggests using it after get_trading_hub, giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like get_btc_usdc_signal.

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 cost ($0.001 via x402), side effects (none), return type (hypernatt_trading_hub_v1), and payment flow (first call gets instructions). It references a guide for more details. Lacks explicit statement about data freshness or locking, but overall sufficient.

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 short, well-structured with labeled sections (USE WHEN, NOT WHEN, RETURNS, COST, Side effects, Guide). Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary 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?

For a complex aggregator tool with no output schema, the description lists the data components (TA, orderflow, etc.) and provides a guide link for return structure. It covers cost, side effects, and usage intent. Could be slightly more complete by summarizing the return format, but the guide compensates.

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 detailed param descriptions for x_payment and agent_wallet. The tool description adds context about the payment flow and cost but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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 explicitly states it is a 'one-stop BTC trading context' aggregating TA, orderflow, liq clusters, hunt, and regime. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_mm_trap_state and single zoom tools as alternatives. The verb 'get' and resource 'trading_hub' are clear.

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?

Provides clear USE WHEN ('first paid context after manifest' or 'full refresh') and NOT WHEN ('only need trap math or single zoom') conditions. Mentions agent chooses cadence with no mandatory poll, and explicitly names sibling get_mm_trap_state as alternative.

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 the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (addresses, URLs, hash), but does not explicitly mention whether it is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. The term 'Free proof' is marketing, not behavioral.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it includes marketing jargon ('eat our own cooking') that may be confusing; a more direct description would be slightly better.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the key return elements (vault address, URLs, signed hash). It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool provides, though further details about format or structure might be helpful.

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 are zero parameters, and the input schema is fully described (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by detailing the content of the response (on-chain vault address, public URLs, signed cycle hash), which goes beyond the empty 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?

Description clearly states it provides proof in the form of on-chain vault address, public URLs, and signed cycle hash for verifying live BTC trades. The verb 'get' and resource 'vault proof' are clear, and it distinguishes from sibling analysis tools by focusing on verification.

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 for verifying trades ('Verify our live BTC trades yourself'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context on when not to use it.

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?

States no side effects, free usage, and returns raw JSON. With no annotations, this is sufficient. Could be slightly enhanced by mentioning response structure details.

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?

Extremely concise with clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT WHEN, RETURNS, etc.). Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, return value snippet, cost, and side effects. Given no output schema, this provides enough context for a preview 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds overall context but does not significantly enhance individual parameter meaning 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?

Clearly states it returns a raw Li.Fi swap quote JSON for previewing routes, fees, and slippage. Distinguishes from swap_via_nattswap by specifying it's without execution steps.

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 provides USE WHEN and NOT WHEN guidance, including the alternative tool swap_via_nattswap for execution. This helps the agent decide appropriately.

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, so description carries full burden. Discloses return values (Li.Fi route, execution_readiness, swap_actions_v1, recommended_action), side effects (read-only until wallet signs), and cost structure (gas + integrator fee). Lacks failure modes but sufficient.

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 efficient paragraph front-loading purpose, usage guidance, returns, and side effects. No filler sentences.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, description fully explains return flow and actionable steps (ordered approve→swap→register_hint). Sufficient for agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal extra beyond what schema provides, justifying baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states it is a cross-chain token swap powered by Li.Fi across 70+ chains. Explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting 'not limited to BTC/USDC' and distinguishing from vault signal tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (bridge, fund gas, treasury routing, rebalance after Decision Core) and when-not-to-use (Decision Core BTC reads alone, naming specific sibling tools).

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