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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description supports by stating it returns a catalog with no destructive actions. The description adds rich behavioral context about the output content (tool counts, namespaces, pricing tiers, access methods) 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 relatively long but well-organized, starting with 'START HERE' and then systematically listing namespaces, pricing, and access methods. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing information. The structure effectively front-loads the most critical instruction.

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 output schema and serves as an overview, the description compensates comprehensively by enumerating the types of tools, namespaces, pricing, and access methods. This fully equips the agent to understand the tool's purpose and what it will receive.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters but adds significant value by detailing what the tool returns without requiring any input. This is appropriate for a discovery tool.

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 explicitly states 'START HERE - Returns the complete Stratalize tool catalog' and provides a detailed breakdown of namespaces, tool counts, and pricing. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_resolve_price_threshold and get_verify_crypto_price, which are specific crypto 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 description instructs 'Call this first to discover...' and notes 'No auth required', clearly indicating it is the entry point. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the 'START HERE' directive strongly implies it should be used before other tools. No direct comparison with siblings is needed given their different domains.

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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false indicate a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: returns attested consensus price with agreement score across specific sources (CoinGecko, Binance, Kraken), which is 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then provides key details. There is no wasted text; every part contributes to understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description does not explain how to use the three parameters or what the return value looks like in detail. It only partially addresses the tool's behavior, leaving significant 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 tool description does not mention any parameters (fiat, symbol, tolerance_pct). The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter purpose or 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 states it verifies current crypto asset price via multi-source consensus, specifying the verb 'verify' and resource 'crypto asset price'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_resolve_price_threshold and get_stratalize_overview, which have different purposes.

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 getting a consensus price, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context suggests it's for verification, but no concrete guidance is given.

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