Stratalize Crypto & DeFi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, conveying a safe read operation. The description adds beyond this by identifying DeFiLlama as the data source, indicating 'live' data, and enumerating the metrics returned (e.g., Ethereum dominance, Base vs ETH comparison), which enriches behavioral understanding.

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 begins with the core action ('Live TVL by blockchain') and packs all relevant details—chains, source, metrics—without redundancy or 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description lists the key return metrics and data source, giving a solid idea of the output. Minor omissions like default sorting or response format do not detract significantly given the low complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It implicitly maps to sort_by through '1D and 7D change' and 'Rankings', but does not explicitly explain the limit parameter. Given only two simple optional parameters, the partial compensation is adequate but not complete.

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 live TVL by blockchain, lists specific chains (Ethereum, Base, Solana, Arbitrum, 50+), and details metrics like rankings, 1D/7D change, protocol counts, and dominance. This differentiates it from sibling benchmark tools such as gas, yield, or correlation benchmarks.

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 implies use for obtaining TVL comparisons and mentions the 'x402 agent context' as a use case, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations: it discloses HTTP 503 responses with no charge when upstream sources are unavailable, an SLA of $0.10 USDC per call, and a data_source field for provenance. The repeated 503 sentence and irrelevant FRED provenance mention detract slightly, but the disclosure is substantial.

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 front-loads the core purpose but becomes repetitive, with two identical statements about HTTP 503 behavior and an out-of-place reference to 'fred_api/fred_csv/fred_mixed' that is irrelevant to crypto. These redundancies and inconsistencies make it longer than necessary without adding 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?

The description covers the output components (Pearson pairs, beta, dominance, diversification signal), source, error behavior, and cost, which is good for a tool without an output schema. However, it fails to explain the only parameter (period), and the duplicate 503 text plus FRED provenance error leave gaps in the tool's operational semantics.

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 'period' with an enum of 7d/30d/90d, yet the description never explains this parameter. It mentions '30-day rolling' as a fixed attribute, which conflicts with the parameter's ability to vary the window. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: it computes a 30-day rolling correlation matrix for BTC, ETH, and SOL, including Pearson pairs, beta, dominance, and diversification signals. This distinguishes it from sibling benchmark tools, which focus on different asset classes or metrics.

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 implicitly targets 'crypto portfolio agents' and mentions a live source, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than 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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context on the data source (DeepDAO public data) and the specific metrics included, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences that get straight to the point. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the output's content and source, but it fails to explain the parameters, leaving a gap for agent understanding.

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 has no descriptions for either parameter (0% coverage). The description does not mention sort_by or min_treasury_usd, so an agent cannot infer their meaning or usage from the description.

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 tool as providing DAO treasury benchmarks with specific metrics (treasury size, stablecoin percentage, runway, and governance token concentration). It distinguishes from sibling benchmark tools by specifying the DAO treasury domain.

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 that this tool is for DAO treasury benchmarks, allowing an agent to select it when relevant. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling benchmarks or provide exclusion criteria.

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=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Free public API, no key' indicates no authentication required, and 'With no filters, universe is stablecoin-marked pools' discloses the default selection behavior. This goes beyond annotation coverage.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core benchmark definition, filter options, and API access details. Information is front-loaded and there is no waste or redundancy. The structure is ideal for agent consumption.

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 read-only tool with two optional string parameters, the description covers the data source, output contents, default behavior, and authentication requirements. It omits details like exact response format or potential rate limits, but given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations, this is adequately complete for reliable 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented as substring filters. The description echoes the same semantics ('project slug substring', 'symbol substring') without adding new meaning beyond the schema. The default universe explanation slightly enhances understanding but does not materially extend parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'DeFi lending and stable yield benchmark from DeFiLlama Yields' and enumerates concrete outputs (top pools by APY with p25/p50/p75 APY bands, TVL, chain, pool id). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_stablecoin_yield_benchmark by specifying the benchmark universe and data source.

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 clearly states optional filters (protocol and asset substrings) and explains the default universe when no filters are applied ('stablecoin-marked pools'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contextual guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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 provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: zero API key required, x402 SLA cost of $0.10 USDC, HTTP 503 without charge on upstream failures, and data_source field disclosing provenance. This goes well beyond annotations and gives the agent clear expectations for cost, failure, and data origin.

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, then provides essential details (returns, source, cost, failure behavior) in a compact but complete manner. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or 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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it states what data is returned (Gwei, USD cost, congestion, agent context), the source (public RPCs), cost, and failure response. No critical context is missing for an agent to decide invocation and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly covers the chain parameter by naming Ethereum, Base, and Solana, which align with the enum values, but it does not explicitly explain the 'chain' parameter or the 'all' option. The enum is self-explanatory, and the description provides partial semantic support, earning a baseline 3.

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 'Live gas price benchmarks for Ethereum, Base, and Solana' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling benchmark tools by focusing on gas prices. It lists exact outputs (Gwei, USD cost, congestion category), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage context by naming the supported chains and mentioning x402 agent economy context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are clearly different benchmarks, so a user can infer when to use it, but explicit guidance is absent.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds valuable behavioral context about HTTP 503 responses when upstream data is unavailable, SLA pricing, and provenance disclosure via data_source field—all beyond the annotations.

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 mostly efficient but contains redundant statements about HTTP 503 behavior (appears twice). It is front-loaded with purpose and key details, but the duplication makes it slightly less polished than ideal.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the key metrics returned (IV, put/call ratio, fear/greed, term structure, VIX) and mentions the data_source field for provenance. It also covers failure modes and SLA. This is fairly complete for a data-retrieval tool, though minor details like units are omitted.

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 has one parameter `asset` with enum values BTC/ETH/all, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions BTC and ETH in the metric list, which implies the asset selection, but it never directly explains the `asset` parameter or how to use it. The enum schema carries most of the burden, but the description adds some context about the covered assets.

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 it provides crypto options implied volatility benchmarks for BTC and ETH, listing specific metrics (7D/30D IV, put/call ratio, fear/greed, term structure, VIX). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling benchmark tools like TVL or yield.

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 says 'For options traders and volatility agents,' implying the target user but not explicitly stating when to prefer this over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or sibling comparisons, so usage context is only implied.

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 mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds valuable context beyond that: it reveals the source (DeFiLlama), the included metrics (T-bill yields, TVL, YoY growth), and a concrete market size. No contradictions with annotations.

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 primary purpose, and adds specific details without redundancy. 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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the data contents and source but omits the category parameter behavior and does not describe the output format. Adequate but with notable 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 description does not mention the `category` parameter at all, despite the schema having 0% description coverage. It uses the phrase 'by category' but never maps that to the input parameter or its enum values, leaving the agent to guess how filtering works.

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 a specific resource: real-world asset tokenization benchmarks, with concrete data points like tokenized T-bill yields and TVL by category. This distinguishes it from sibling benchmark tools such as get_chain_tvl_benchmark or get_crypto_correlation_benchmark.

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 implies usage for RWA-related metrics and quotes specific data categories, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The inclusion of specific examples makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the live data source, the HTTP 503 error behavior with no charge on upstream unavailability, and data provenance (DeFiLlama + FRED). This adds substantial operational context beyond what annotations provide.

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 information-dense but structured with clear fragments: benchmark scope, output metrics, data sources, and error behavior. Every phrase contributes value 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return data (APY, p25/p50/p75 bands, spread vs T-bill) and the tool's behavior (live source, 503 on upstream failure). It is complete for a simple read-only benchmark tool with one parameter.

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 has one parameter (asset) with no description (0% coverage). The description lists the stablecoins covered (USDC/USDT/DAI) and implies the asset filter, but does not explicitly explain the 'asset' parameter, the 'all' option, or the mismatched 'TVL filter' mention without a corresponding schema parameter.

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 specifies a specific verb+resource: provides stablecoin lending yield benchmarks for USDC/USDT/DAI across named protocols (Aave, Compound, Morpho, Spark) and by chain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on stablecoin yields.

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 implies its use for stablecoin yield data but does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools like get_defi_yield_benchmark, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or 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?

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that, including access methods (public MCP no auth, x402 micropayments on Base with exact pricing tiers, and OAuth for specific features). This discloses authentication requirements and cost implications, which are valuable behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with 'START HERE' and immediately states the purpose. It then efficiently lists access methods and pricing in a structured format, followed by a direct call-to-action. Every sentence provides actionable information, with 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 zero-parameter, read-only catalog tool, the description fully covers purpose, access, pricing, and usage timing. Since there is no output schema, the description sufficiently implies the return value (a catalog) through its explicit statement. It is complete for the tool's intended use.

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 is trivially covered. The description adds context about the tool's role as a discovery catalog, but no parameter-level detail is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate per the rubric for 0-parameter tools.

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 'Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling benchmark tools by serving as the entry-point discovery tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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' and 'Call this first to discover tools by role or vertical,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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