Tideline

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the timing of publication (evening) and the key-dependent output difference. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no filler, and the key-dependent behavior is front-loaded. The phrasing 'is delivered to' is slightly indirect for a tool action, but the description remains compact and readable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential access distinction and points to the public record alternative. It does not describe the return format for Core members, but the title and sibling context fill most of the gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the key-dependent behavior is the only relevant input context.

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 what the tool does: it returns the current published model state for Tideline Core members, and for users without a key it explains Core access and where the delayed public record is. It is specific about the resource and the access condition, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 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?

The description gives clear context on when the tool is relevant: with a Tideline key it returns the current state, without one it returns access instructions and points to the delayed public record. It implies the alternative path for public users but does not name sibling tools explicitly.

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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context that definitions are 'fixed' and mentions the publication schedule, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as caching, staleness, or error conditions. The description is consistent with the annotations and provides modest added 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 a single compact phrase with no filler. The core content is front-loaded, and the parenthetical field list improves clarity without excess length. Every word contributes meaning.

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 parameterless, read-only getter with strong annotations, the description adequately communicates what the tool returns. The publication schedule aspect is slightly under-specified, and no return format is described, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. A perfect score is unnecessary because the description is not actively adding parameter value.

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 identifies the resource: fixed definitions of all published fields plus the publication schedule, and the parenthetical list gives concrete examples of the covered fields. The 'get' verb is implied by the tool name, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_current_state or get_public_record, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer when definitions or the publication schedule are needed. This is a clear gap in routing behavior.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by mentioning the 30-day delay, the source, and the 'nothing re-computed' aspect, which are not in the annotations. However, it doesn't go into detail about potential rate limits or response size, but given annotations, this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and delay, followed by the source and behavior. Every element adds value, from the delay to the read-only nature. 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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is complete. It mentions the delay, the source, and the scope. An agent has enough to call it correctly without needing an output 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?

The schema already documents the `days` parameter with constraints and a description, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 provides published end-of-day model states and allocation changes with a 30-day delay, and it explicitly mentions the source URL. This differentiates it from siblings that likely provide current state or definitions. The verb 'get' and resource 'public record' are specific.

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 states that it is read-only and that it shows published states only, which implies it is not for current or re-computed data. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or provide direct contrasts, so an agent might still need to infer when to choose this over get_current_state. Some guidance is given but not exhaustive.

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?

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the content returned, including third-party receipt types, but no additional behavioral details such as response shape or independent verification mechanics.

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 that front-loads the main resource and then lists the key supporting artifacts. It is compact and contains no filler, though the technical detail is somewhat dense.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description sufficiently conveys what will be returned and the verification purpose. It does not specify exact output structure, but with no output schema and strong annotations, the definition is largely 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively complete, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource: the latest public ledger fingerprint, its RFC 3161 and OpenTimestamps receipts, and verification instructions. It is specific enough to be distinguished from siblings like get_public_record, though it does not explicitly name sibling distinctions.

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 'how to verify the record independently' implies the tool is for verification-related lookups, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_current_state or get_public_record.

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