Stratalize Oracle

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds value by specifying 'multi-source consensus', which hints at aggregation behavior without contradicting 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 a single, well-constructed sentence of 15 words with clear verb and object. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

Given the complexity of 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details about return values, consensus behavior, and optional parameters like 'fiat' and 'tolerance_pct', leaving the agent with incomplete 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It implies 'symbol', 'threshold', and 'direction' but fails to explain 'fiat' (default usd) and 'tolerance_pct' (0-100, default 0.5). This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 resolves a price threshold comparison for crypto assets using multi-source consensus, specifically for settlement and verification. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_verify_crypto_price by focusing on threshold checks rather than price verification.

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 mentions 'settlement and verification workflows' as use cases, providing some context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with siblings like get_stratalize_overview, limiting guidance for the AI agent.

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. The description adds value by explaining availability via public MCP (no auth) or x402 micropayments, and that OAuth is needed for certain content. This contextualizes the access model 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 concise, front-loaded with 'START HERE', and efficiently conveys purpose, access modes, and follow-up actions. Every sentence adds 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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose, entry point role, payment/auth tiers, and hints at subsequent tool discovery. No gaps are apparent.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and usage.

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 defines the tool as returning the complete Stratalize tool catalog, positioning it as the entry point for discovering tools by role or vertical. It explicitly uses 'START HERE' and 'Call this first', which distinctively sets it apart from its siblings (get_resolve_price_threshold, get_verify_crypto_price) that are specialized 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 tool explicitly instructs agents to call it first ('START HERE — Returns...', 'Call this first to discover tools...'). It distinguishes when to use alternatives (specific tools after discovery) and notes auth requirements for certain capabilities (e.g., OAuth for org intelligence). This provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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?

Adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: discloses sources (CoinGecko, Coinbase, Kraken) and output (attested consensus price with agreement score). No contradictions with readOnlyHint.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and result. No unnecessary 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?

Explains core functionality but lacks details on parameter usage and error handling (e.g., consensus failure). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, but description only explains 'symbol' implicitly. Does not clarify 'fiat' (currency) or 'tolerance_pct' parameters, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Verify' and resource 'crypto asset price' via multi-source consensus. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_resolve_price_threshold' which resolves thresholds.

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?

Implied usage for verifying current price, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Guidance is minimal.

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