cryptoport-port

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

It transparently discloses that it returns available:false when not yet available, is not charged in that state, and refuses portfolio/position/risk-profile inputs with HTTP 400. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, revealing specific behavioral edge cases.

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 somewhat lengthy due to disclaimers and repetitive phrases (e.g., 'NOT YET AVAILABLE' and 'not charged'), but it is logically structured and each sentence contributes necessary information about behavior and constraints.

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 thoroughly covers the not-available behavior and input refusals, but lacks details about the successful response structure (e.g., the board data and anchor proof format) when the tool becomes available. This leaves some context incomplete.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (date and payment). The tool description adds a semantic constraint by stating it refuses certain input types, but does not elaborate further on the existing parameters, keeping the added value modest.

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 the whole board as it stood on a past date with that day's anchor proof, and explicitly notes it is not yet available, returning available:false. This gives a precise and complete 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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool over siblings like latest_board. It only implies historical use by saying 'past date' and notes the current board is not available, but lacks direct when/when-not 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses freshness characteristics (71% days, same-day half the time, max three days old), non-real-time nature, payload fields (stale, stale_days, built_from_brief_date), a disclaimer, and refusal behavior with HTTP 400. This is substantial additional transparency.

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 the core purpose, then adds essential behavioral details and restrictions in a logical order. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 purpose, usage, behavior, limitations, and return fields. With only two optional parameters and rich schema descriptions, the description is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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% and both parameters are thoroughly described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without additional value.

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 states the core function precisely: retrieving dated, falsifiable events from the board with an optional window. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on catalysts and windowing, and the title reinforces the specific scope.

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: free, not real-time, and explicitly states it rejects portfolio/position/risk-profile inputs. However, it does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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 behavioral details beyond the annotations: it states the tool is 'FREE', gives a legal disclaimer ('not advice'), explains that invalid inputs are refused with HTTP 400, and alerts users to staleness fields in every payload. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, though the payment parameter in the schema introduces minor ambiguity about the 'FREE' claim.

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 verbose, combining multiple disclaimers, data-quality notes, and input restrictions into a long, run-on text. Phrases like 'FREE' and 'same facts are also free' are redundant, and the overall structure could be condensed into more focused sentences.

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 output fields, data freshness, legal disclaimer, and input restrictions, giving a fairly complete picture of what the tool returns and how it behaves. The payment flow is not mentioned, but it is fully explained in the input schema, so it does not leave a critical gap for the agent.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (ticker and payment), so the description adds little extra parameter detail. The description does note that portfolio, position, and risk-profile inputs are not accepted, which is a useful boundary, but otherwise relies on the schema's complete coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 one ticker's full current record, enumerating specific fields like tier, channel, call, and stance. It also distinguishes the tool from the static JSON alternative, making the 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?

It provides guidance on when to use the tool (queryable form vs. static JSON), when not to use it (portfolio/position inputs are refused), and notes data freshness limitations (71% of days, not real-time). While it does not directly name sibling tools, the context is sufficient for an agent to choose appropriately.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals data freshness limitations (not real-time, stale fields to read), derivation from the arc string, and coverage statistics (71% of days, same-day ~half the time). It also includes a disclaimer that it is commentary, not advice.

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 well-structured, leading with the core purpose then layering data-quality and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly long and could be trimmed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description explains the main return fields (dated series, movement, first/last brief, mention count, flip flag) and mentions staleness fields. It does not exhaustively list every field or the exact JSON shape, but it covers the essential contract for a caller.

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 tool description does not add extra meaning to the ticker or payment parameters beyond what the schema already explains; it only adds a global note about rejected input types.

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 states a specific deliverable: the full stance arc for a ticker parsed into a dated series with movement, first/last brief, mention count, and flip flag. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools by focusing on the stance arc rather than board snapshots, catalysts, or coin data.

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—when you need a parsed stance arc—but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It does mention a hard constraint (rejects portfolio/position/risk inputs), which guides appropriate use.

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