Stratalize Oracle

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 valuable behavioral context by revealing the 'multi-source consensus' mechanism, which informs the agent about reliability and potential latency. However, it does not describe pagination, error behavior, or rate limits.

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 conveys the core purpose and mechanism. No filler 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description provides a high-level purpose but omits return value format, how threshold comparison is performed, the role of tolerance_pct, and any edge cases. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional schemas.

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%, and the description does not explain individual parameters like fiat, tolerance_pct, or the exact semantics of threshold comparison. It only hints at 'above or below' and 'crypto asset', leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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: resolving whether a crypto asset is above or below a threshold. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'multi-source consensus' and the specific 'threshold' focus, which contrasts with the more general price verification implied by the sibling name get_verify_crypto_price.

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 clear context for use ('settlement and verification workflows') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies a specific use case but stops short of naming sibling tools or 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, and the description is consistent. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing authentication requirements and the pricing structure for different service tiers, which goes beyond the annotation fields and helps set expectations for the agent.

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 the core purpose, followed by compact pricing and auth details. While it packs many specifics into three sentences, each piece (pricing tiers, OAuth requirement, domain coverage) serves a functional purpose for the agent deciding whether and how to invoke the 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and siblings are narrow query tools, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool returns, the domains it spans, access methods, and cost implications. It could mention the response format, but the catalog nature is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids parameter details since none exist. It adds value by explaining the tool's role and output scope, which is sufficient given no params to document.

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 'START HERE' and clearly states the tool 'Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog', a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_resolve_price_threshold and get_verify_crypto_price, which focus on specific price verification rather than a broad catalog discovery function.

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 'Call this first to discover tools by role or vertical', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also outlines access modes (public MCP, x402 micropayments, OAuth) giving practical context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative entry points.

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 a safe read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that it aggregates data from independent sources (CoinGecko, Coinbase, Kraken) and returns an attested consensus price with an agreement score. However, it does not describe what happens if sources disagree or other edge-case behaviors.

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 immediately followed by the return value. Every word earns its place with no 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and return type, but omits details about parameter meanings and consensus failure behavior. It is adequate for a simple read operation but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the meanings of symbol, fiat, or tolerance_pct. It only loosely implies that 'crypto asset price' relates to these parameters, leaving the tolerance_pct semantics particularly unclear. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Verify current crypto asset price' with a distinctive method (multi-source consensus). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_resolve_price_threshold and get_stratalize_overview by emphasizing verification and consensus rather than threshold resolution or overview.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to verify a current price via consensus) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No reference is made to sibling tools or when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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