hypernatt-terminal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is free, compact by default, and that passing detail=full provides additional quota/pass/onboarding info. However, terms like 'cluster do_not' and 'honest usage' are undefined, and no mention is made of side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It adds some context but leaves significant 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 concise at three sentences and front-loaded with 'Start here'. Each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, how to get more, and what to do next. However, the first sentence is dense and cryptic, using jargon that may confuse.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level summary of contents but leaves key terms ('cluster do_not', 'honest usage') undefined. It also doesn't clarify how this relates to swap_via_nattswap. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter guidance ('Pass detail=full for quota/pass/onboarding') restates the schema's detail description without adding new semantics. The locale param is already well explained in the schema as ignored.

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 indicates the tool is a starting point that provides a catalog of 3 tools, prices, a cluster do-not list, and honest usage info. The verb is implicit ('Start here') and phrasing is cryptic, but it clearly positions itself as an entry point and differentiates from the sibling get_liq_radar by ordering the workflow.

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 says 'Start here' and 'Then get_liq_radar', establishing a clear usage sequence. It also advises using detail=full for quota/pass/onboarding, giving concrete parameter guidance. While it doesn't mention swap_via_nattswap, the primary alternative is addressed.

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 burden. It discloses cost ($0.001 x402), payment rails (Base or Solana), return object type, and explicitly 'Side effects: none'. It also tells the agent how to interpret the data class, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations would cover. It does not describe the 402-retry flow, but that is covered in the x_payment parameter description.

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-labeled with USE WHEN, NOT, RETURNS, COST, and Side effects, making key decision points easy to locate. The sequencing instruction is front-loaded, and no sentence is wasted even though the tone is terse and jargon-heavy.

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 low-parameter, read-only style tool with no output schema, the description gives enough: return type, cost, payment rails, context records, and side effects. It does not fully define the structure of hypernatt_liq_radar_v2 or clarify what happens on payment denial, but those are partially inferred from x_payment schema.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal new parameter semantics: it repeats the strong whitelist and default BTC behavior already stated in the symbol schema, and mentions x402 rails already covered. It argues domain interpretation of output data, but doesn't materially enrich parameter meaning.

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 positions the tool as a liquidity-radar data reader: it returns hypernatt_liq_radar_v2, focuses on magnet, OI, L/S, clusters, real liqs, and frames its role as terrain/timing/sizing rather than trade execution. This distinct from the sibling swap_via_nattswap and get_agent_manifest. However, the purpose is never stated in a plain 'Gets liquidity data' style and relies on domain jargon, so it is not a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use ('USE WHEN: terrain / timing / sizing') and when-not-to-use ('NOT a trade signal') guidance, and even prescribes a sequence ('If cluster_grammar is present, read it before liq_radar'). It does not name a specific alternative tool for trade execution, so it stops short of fully explicit alternatives.

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 provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the MCP call is read-only until the wallet signs, details on-chain gas costs and the 0.5% HyperNatt fee, and notes that Li.Fi may add its own cut, instructing the user to read quote.estimate.feeCosts. It also recommends signing swap_actions_v1 in order, providing clear operational transparency.

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 and well-structured, with clear 'USE WHEN:', 'RETURNS:', and 'Side effects:' labels. The opening sentence immediately establishes purpose, and every clause adds relevant information (fees, signing order). There is no wasted text.

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 a complex swap tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return values, fees, and side effects. It could elaborate slightly on what 'execution_readiness' means, but the provided instruction to sign swap_actions_v1 in order gives sufficient operational guidance. Overall, it is highly comprehensive for the tool's 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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema; it focuses on fees and execution flow. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Cross-chain token swap powered by Li.Fi across 70+ chains', providing a specific verb and resource. It also lists concrete use cases (bridge, fund gas, treasury routing, rebalance), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like get_agent_manifest 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?

The description includes an explicit 'USE WHEN:' section with concrete scenarios (bridge, fund gas, treasury routing, rebalance). This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, and while it doesn't name alternative tools, the listed use cases are actionable and sufficient for decision-making.

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