Adversarial red-team of a trading claim/backtest: small-n, CI, tail-driven expectancy, asymmetric window, circularity, unaccounted cost. Returns flags + verdict. K1 verification service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| claim | No | ||
| sample | No | ||
| win_rate | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since there are no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions that the tool returns flags and a verdict, providing some insight into its output. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or potential limitations. The phrase 'adversarial red-team' implies it will challenge the claim, but more transparency about processing steps would be helpful.
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, fitting in a single sentence. It uses a structured list of checks and clearly states the return type. However, the heavy use of jargon (CI, tail-driven expectancy, asymmetric window) may reduce clarity for some agents, though it remains succinct.
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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a general overview but lacks critical details. It explains what the tool does and that it returns flags+verdict, but does not define parameter semantics or describe the output format in a way an agent can fully utilize. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or error conditions, leaving some context gaps.
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 provides no parameter descriptions, and the tool description does not explicitly map parameters (n, claim, sample, win_rate) to their meanings. While terms like 'small-n' hint at n and 'win_rate' is self-explanatory, the description fails to define 'claim', 'sample', or how they relate to 'tail-driven expectancy' and 'asymmetric window'. Given 0% schema coverage, more parameter explanation is needed.
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: adversarial red-teaming of a trading claim/backtest. It lists specific aspects it checks (small-n, CI, tail-driven expectancy, etc.) and explicitly mentions it returns flags and a verdict, making it distinct from siblings like build_swap or track_record.
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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit guidance on conditions that warrant calling verify_claim instead of other sibling tools, such as track_record or score_mint. The purpose is clear, but usage context is not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct actions (build a swap, check a mint, verify a claim, fetch pricing), and the descriptions make boundaries clear. The main risk is mild confusion between check_mint/score_mint and copy_signals/recent_events, as both pairs sit in adjacent signal/safety territory, but they are not interchangeable.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (build_swap, check_mint, score_mint, verify_claim, track_record). guard_pricing and recent_events break that pattern slightly, but the naming remains predictable and readable overall.
Nine tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns a place in the safety/signal/trading workflow. It is neither bloated with near-duplicates nor too thin to define a useful server.
The server covers a coherent lifecycle: discovery (recent_events/copy_signals), safety and validation (check_mint/score_mint/verify_claim), execution (build_swap), and outcome auditing (track_record). Minor gaps exist, such as an EVM swap builder to complete the Robinhood check path, but the core workflow is usable.