kristo-intelligence

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a cost aspect ('Paid via x402'), which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, or any rate limits. The 'status' wording implies a read operation but never explicitly confirms it.

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—two short sentences—and both carry information: the first identifies the subject, the second notes the payment method. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. It sacrifices some completeness for brevity, but as a standalone text it is efficiently structured.

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 being a simple tool with no parameters, the description omits any information about the return value or output format. 'Status' is vague—does it return a boolean, text, an object? Without an output schema, the agent cannot know what to do with the result. The payment detail is clear, but the core purpose and expected outcome remain under-specified.

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 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; the baseline of 4 applies given the absence of parameters. No further semantic clarification is required.

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 names the resource ('Telegram bot integration status') which aligns with the tool name, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check'. It is distinguishable from siblings (get_market_stats, get_onchain_sales) by subject, but the phrase is a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement, leaving some ambiguity about what the tool actually returns.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or what conditions might warrant it. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and offers no decision-making support.

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 carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a critical trait: 'Paid via x402' informs the agent of a monetary cost. However, it does not mention whether it is read-only, any rate limits, failure modes, or response format. This is a modest disclosure but incomplete for an unbounded API call.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs in the resource, data types, and payment status with zero filler. It is efficiently structured and immediately conveys the essential information 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the notable requirement (payment). It might be slightly more transparent if it clarified whether the data is real-time or aggregated, but the term 'live market data' hints at that. Overall, it is adequately complete for its simplicity.

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, so the schema fully covers the input space (100% coverage). The description correctly adds no parameter syntax because there is nothing to add. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no 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?

The description clearly states the resource ('market activity, daily stats, and live market data') and names the data sources. It implies a retrieval operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_onchain_sales, so it misses the explicit sibling distinction. Still, the purpose is unambiguous and 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (get_bot_status, get_onchain_sales). No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only lists what the tool returns, leaving the agent to guess appropriate usage contexts.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits such as the on-chain nature, the specific data shape (USDC transfers to the fee receiver), and the x402 payment requirement. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, output format, or failure/cost behavior beyond the mention of payment.

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 sentence that front-loads the core meaning and adds only two high-value clarifications: the transaction type and the payment mechanism. Every phrase 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 that the tool takes no parameters and has no output schema, the description covers the essential context an agent needs: what the data is, where it comes from, and that it is paid via x402. It stops short of describing the returned record structure, but the low complexity makes this a minor 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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The absence of parameter documentation is not a gap because no inputs exist; the baseline of 4 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?

The description names a specific operation (getting real on-chain sales history) and defines the data source precisely as USDC transfers to the Kristo fee receiver. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools get_bot_status and get_market_stats, which cover different domains.

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 given about when to use this tool versus the siblings or when not to use it. The description does not mention alternatives, preconditions, or typical use cases beyond the implied one of fetching sales history.

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