hypernatt-terminal

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a catalog with live usage stats and proof of edge, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, which is appropriate. The 'Free.' note hints at no cost. A slightly higher score would require explicit read-only declaration.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key directive ('Start here'). Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy. Highly 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers its main purpose and contents. It could mention that it returns the list of sibling tools, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to understand its role as a starting point. Slight gap in not specifying return format.

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 has one optional parameter (locale) with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already describes it 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 the tool is an entry point ('Start here') that provides a catalog of 9 terminal tools with prices, usage stats, and proof of edge. It uniquely distinguishes from sibling tools (which are the tools being cataloged) and specifies the resource and outcome.

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 explicitly says 'Start here,' indicating it should be used before other tools. It implies the context as an introductory or discovery tool. While it doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, the context is clear given the tool's role as a catalog.

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, but description discloses side effects (none), cost ($0.001 via x402), PnL authority restrictions, and return format details. Could mention rate limits or auth requirements if any.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage conditions. Contains many details but each is relevant; could be organized into sections 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?

No output schema, but description adequately explains return variants (summary v2 vs full payload), cost mechanism, and prerequisites. Covers complexity of the tool well.

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 all 3 parameters with descriptions. Description adds context on payment flow (x402 vs quota), full_payload behavior, and agent_wallet role, going beyond 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 the tool returns a real-time Mimo cycle signal (LONG/SHORT/HOLD) for BTC vault alignment. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_mm_trap_state by naming them explicitly.

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 specifies when to use (vault bias, cycle_id, open PnL) and when not to (MM trap math, hunt score alone), naming two sibling tools directly.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares the tool as 'Redacted, read-only' with 'Side effects: none', and specifies the cost mechanism. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-structured with clear USE WHEN, NOT WHEN, RETURNS, and COST sections. Every sentence adds value, and it front-loads the core purpose. Despite being longer, it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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, the description adequately explains the return structure with field names. It covers usage, cost, side effects, and distinguishes from siblings. Lacks error handling details, but overall complete for a read-only data retrieval 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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions for x_payment and agent_wallet; it only reiterates the cost context which is already implied by the parameter descriptions.

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 starts with 'Raw BTC liquidation radar' and lists specific data points (magnet score, OI build-up, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by providing explicit USE WHEN and NOT WHEN conditions.

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: 'USE WHEN: you need the full microstructure block (clusters, magnet, OI).' and when not to use: 'NOT WHEN: trap/sweep/reclaim verdicts (get_mm_trap_state) or short hunt narrative (get_mm_hunt_score).' This provides clear guidance with sibling references.

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 cost ($0.001 flat), payment method (x402), and side effects (none). No annotations provided, but description adds behavioral context beyond typical.

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?

Concise single paragraph, front-loaded with key question, structured with USE WHEN, NOT WHEN, RETURNS, COST. 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?

Given no output schema, description lists return fields and their range. Covers cost, side effects, and usage context. Complete for a tool with 0 required params and rich sibling differentiation.

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 already describes parameters. Description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond schema, but references return fields.

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 purpose: checking if market maker is hunting your position, providing liquidation pressure summary. It differentiates from siblings by naming specific alternatives (get_mm_trap_state, 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?

Explicitly states when to use (quick hunt read, alert_level, magnet_bias) and when not to use, with sibling tool names and reasons.

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 read-only nature, no side effects, cost ($0.001 via x402), and disclaimer 'not trade advice'. No annotations provided, so this full behavioral context is critical and well-provided.

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 paragraph with clear section markers (USE WHEN, NOT WHEN, RETURNS, COST) that make it scannable and front-loaded with the core question. Could be slightly more compact but is efficient for the information provided.

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?

Despite no output schema, lists return fields explicitly. Covers payment, side effects, cost, and disclaimers. Sibling tools provide context. Complete for a trading data 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters effectively. The description adds no significant extra meaning beyond the schema for the parameters.

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?

Opens with a clear question 'Is the MM trapping BTC right now?' describing the tool's exact purpose. Specific resource 'MM trapping state' is detailed, and it differentiates from siblings by stating 'not raw cluster data' and explicitly 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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT WHEN' sections with precise conditions and sibling tool names (get_mm_hunt_score, get_liq_radar) for when to use 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?

In the absence of annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: costs, side effects (none), and a critical warning to not treat similarity_pct as win probability. This ensures safe 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?

Well-structured with sections for purpose, usage, returns, cost, side effects. All sentences are informative and front-loaded, no fluff.

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, the description adequately details return values (hypernatt_similarity_match_v1 structure) and includes cost and side effects. Sibling list provides additional 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds context for x_payment (payment flow) and full_payload (feature vectors), going slightly 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'What happened last time BTC microstructure looked like this? Top-3 historical regime matches with observed about 4h BTC outcomes'. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_btc_usdc_signal and get_mm_trap_state, leaving no ambiguity.

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 'USE WHEN: analogies / regime context only' and 'NOT WHEN: trade direction (get_btc_usdc_signal), live trap (get_mm_trap_state), or sizing', providing clear alternatives and context.

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?

Description discloses output content and that it's free, but no annotations exist. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, behavioral traits are minimal; description adequately covers what the tool does.

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 sentences, front-loaded with a catchy phrase. While effective, the first sentence could be slightly more direct; overall concise and clear.

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 no annotations, description satisfactorily explains what the tool returns. Lists three key elements. Could mention formal output type, but adequate for a simple proof retrieval.

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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by enumerating the proof components (vault address, URLs, signed hash), which is more informative than an 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 the tool provides a 'proof' with specific elements (on-chain vault address, public URLs, signed cycle hash) and its purpose (verify live BTC trades). Verb 'get' and resource 'vault proof' are explicit, distinguishing it 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?

Implies use case ('Verify our live BTC trades yourself'), but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternatives. Since no sibling tool directly competes, guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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 key behaviors: free (no x402), no side effects, returns quote JSON. Lacks details on error responses or network dependency, but adequately covers cost and safety for a read-only quote tool.

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?

Three focused sentences front-loaded with purpose, usage, and return info. No redundancy, every sentence adds value.

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 type, cost, and side effects. Without output schema, the return description helps. Minor gaps: no mention of freshness or caching, but adequate for a preview quote 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no per-parameter value 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'swap quote'. Explicitly contrasts with swap_via_nattswap, stating it returns raw JSON without execution steps. Distinct 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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT WHEN' with direct reference to sibling swap_via_nattswap for step-by-step execution. Provides clear decision context.

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 shoulders full burden. It discloses side effects (MCP read-only until wallet signs), costs (gas + integrator fee), and return format. Could be more explicit about post-signing execution, but overall adequate.

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?

Paragraph is dense but covers purpose, usage, returns, costs, and side effects without redundancy. Slightly unstructured but 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?

No output schema, but description specifies return items (route JSON, step-by-step instructions, recommended_action). For a swap tool, this is sufficient context given sibling swap_quote provides quotes.

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% with each parameter documented. The description adds context about the overall swap capability but does not enhance individual parameter meanings beyond 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 performs cross-chain token swaps via Li.Fi across 70+ chains, including Hyperliquid, and explicitly mentions any pair not limited to BTC/USDC. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_btc_usdc_signal by specifying scope.

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 lists USE WHEN scenarios (bridge, fund gas, treasury routing) and NOT WHEN scenarios (Decision Core BTC reads), providing clear guidance on when to invoke 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.