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 declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that the definitions are fixed and include a publication schedule, though it does not describe response shape or any access constraints.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that enumerates the covered fields without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple reference tool.

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 no-parameter, read-only reference tool with full annotation coverage, the description gives the essential scope: field definitions and publication schedule. It could be marginally stronger by clarifying when the schedule matters, but nothing critical 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?

This is a zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on the returned reference content instead.

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?

States exactly what the tool returns: fixed definitions for every published field, enumerating the field categories, plus the publication schedule. That scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_state, which return live values rather than the vocabulary itself.

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 never says when to call this tool or when to prefer a sibling; it only describes the content. An agent can infer it is a reference lookup, but there are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.

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 read-only, idempotent, and closed-world traits, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful behavior beyond them, namely the 90-day publication lag and the guarantee that nothing is recomputed. The data provenance URL is a useful extra. It does not discuss pagination or response shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the delay constraint is stated early. The parenthetical URL reference is slightly awkward in phrasing but not wasteful.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential oddity an agent must know: the 90-day lag and published-only scope. Little is missing for correct 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% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema with default, min, and max. The description adds no semantics for it, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (published end-of-day model states and allocation changes), and identifies the key scope qualifier: 90-day delay. It implicitly distinguishes from get_current_state via that delay, though it never names the sibling outright.

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 'published states only, nothing re-computed' hints at when this is appropriate (historical, as-published data), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_current_state or get_verification. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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.