cryptoport-port

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing that the tool is free, that it answers with available:false while unavailable, that it is not charged in that state, that it rejects portfolio/position/risk-profile inputs with HTTP 400, and that payment requires x402 over Base Sepolia. This is substantial behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is information-dense and mostly well structured, but it contains redundancy: 'FREE' and 'is NOT charged while that is true' repeat the same point, and 'NOT YET AVAILABLE' appears twice. The sentence 'Commentary on public statements, not advice' also appears unrelated to tool invocation and adds noise.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers availability, response behavior, charging, error conditions, and the payment interaction flow. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret the expected outcome.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the payment parameter in detail: the X-PAYMENT header mapping, base64 encoding, the initial call to receive 402 terms, and settlement on Base Sepolia. This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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: emit the whole board as it stood on a past date with that day's anchor proof. It also contrasts this with the current board, which helps distinguish it from the sibling latest_board without opening any schema.

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 the feature is not yet available, that only the current board is emitted, and that the tool will return available:false without charging. It also gives a clear two-step payment flow. It could be stronger by explicitly naming latest_board as the alternative for current data, but the context makes the intended usage 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?

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: data staleness distribution, non-real-time nature, stale_* payload fields, refusal of unsupported inputs with HTTP 400, and a disclaimer about commentary. This far exceeds 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, freshness behavior, payload caveats, refusal behavior, and payment flow. Critical constraints are front-loaded before operational details.

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 no output schema, the description does well by naming the key payload fields (stale / stale_days / built_from_brief_date) and covering payment, freshness, and refusal behavior. It could go further by describing the general event shape, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic detail for the window parameter (past-due exclusion behavior) and for payment (full call-without-it then settle-then-retry sequence), pushing it above the baseline.

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 identifies the resource as dated, falsifiable events on the board and explains that catalysts can be windowed by due date. It is specific but does not explicitly compare against siblings like latest_board or search, so it slightly misses on direct differentiation.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: how the window filters past-due events, that the data is not real-time, and the two-step x402 payment flow. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' statements, but the staleness and freshness context strongly implies when it is appropriate.

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=true annotation, the description discloses freshness bounds ('71% of days', 'never more than three days old'), guaranteed staleness fields in every payload, HTTP 400 refusals for unsupported inputs, and the commentary-not-advice nature. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in 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 dense but ordered: purpose, alternative representation, freshness, payload guarantees, rejection behavior. Every sentence contributes operational context; none is filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields and the always-included staleness keys. It also covers freshness, limitations, and refusal behavior, giving an agent enough to invoke the tool and interpret results correctly.

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%: both ticker and payment are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise scope: 'One ticker's full current record' and enumerates the exact contents (tier, channel, call, stance, breadth, first/last seen, catalysts, anchor proof). It is unmistakably a single-ticker lookup distinct from the board-level and search siblings.

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?

It gives clear use context: queryable single-ticker form, static JSON alternative, not real-time, and rejection of portfolio/position/risk-profile inputs. It does not explicitly route to sibling tools like search or stance_history for other use cases, so it falls just short of full alternative 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: staleness statistics, maximum age of three days, not real-time, the presence of stale/stale_days/built_from_brief_date fields, and HTTP 400 refusal for unsupported inputs. This gives the agent a clear model of tool behavior.

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 compact and information-dense, with key facts front-loaded. The repetition of 'Free' at the beginning and middle is unnecessary, but overall every other sentence contributes useful information about content, freshness, fields, and limitations.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the payload contains, names the staleness fields, describes freshness bounds, and covers error behavior for unsupported inputs. For a zero-parameter read-only tool, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 is empty with 100% coverage, but the description still adds value by explicitly stating that portfolio, position, and risk-profile inputs are not accepted and will cause HTTP 400. This prevents the agent from attempting invalid arguments and reinforces the no-parameter contract.

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 returning the whole current board of coin rows from tracked crypto YouTube videos, including stance, call, and dated specifics. It is specific about the resource and content, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling board_snapshot, which may overlap.

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 usage context: this is a free, read-only view of the latest board, not real-time, with possible staleness. It also warns that portfolio/position/risk-profile inputs are rejected. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use versus siblings, but the context is strong enough for safe selection.

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 annotation, the description discloses actual failure behavior (HTTP 400 for unsupported inputs), confirms it returns per-coin URLs, and clarifies the nature of results ('Commentary on public statements, not advice'). This is meaningful operational detail beyond the structured 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?

Front-loaded with the key fact that it is free, then immediately states the operation. The main flaw is redundancy: 'FREE' appears twice, and the 'Commentary' disclaimer, while useful, is tangential to invocation. Still, the description is compact and scannable.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, the search scope, the output format, and a key error behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the published columns searched and by explicitly warning that unsupported semantic inputs will be rejected. This goes beyond the schema's simple substring example.

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?

States a specific verb ('search'), a definite resource ('the current board'), the exact columns searched, and the return type (matches with per-coin URL). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like board_snapshot or coin, even without naming them.

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?

Provides clear context on what search operates over and explicitly states what it does not accept (portfolio, position, risk-profile inputs). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say 'use this when...', but the scope is precise enough that an agent can infer when it is appropriate.

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?

Even with readOnlyHint=true present, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the tool is free, a parsed shape not withheld data, based on ~71% brief coverage, content freshness limits, not real-time, and every payload carries stale/stale_days/built_from_brief_date. It also discloses refusal behavior with HTTP 400 for unsupported inputs. This goes far beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 dense but every sentence adds meaningful information: functionality, freshness caveats, payload fields, risks, and input restrictions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before warnings. Slightly run-on in the first sentence and a bit long overall, but there is no wasted filler.

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 no output schema present, the description takes on the burden of explaining the return content and does so thoroughly: dated series, movement values, first/last brief, mention count, flip flag, and staleness fields. It also covers data freshness, real-time limitations, refusal behavior, and the payment parameter is covered by the schema. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents both ticker and payment thoroughly, including the two-step payment flow. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond reinforcing 'one ticker' and excluding portfolio/position/risk-profile inputs; that is useful but not necessary because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 function: parsing the full stance arc for one ticker into a dated series with movement, first/last brief, mention count, and flip flag. It is precise about the resource (one ticker) and the output shape, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it is a parsed shape derived from the published arc string, not a board snapshot or search result.

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 it via 'one ticker' and 'full stance arc,' but it never explicitly names a sibling alternative or gives a when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule. It does add useful exclusions (no portfolio/position/risk-profile inputs, not real-time), but it relies on the agent to infer the tool's niche relative to board_snapshot, latest_board, and search.

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