AI Agent Tokenized Stock OS

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

Discloses that the API key is shown once, implying a one-time issuance. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it adequately covers the key behavioral trait but lacks details on side effects or required preconditions beyond payment.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the usage condition. Every word adds value; no 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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits important details such as parameter meanings, return values, authentication requirements, and post-conditions (e.g., key expires after show).

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 description does not explain any of the three input parameters (owner, tier, txHash). With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap; the agent must guess their meaning from context.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function: verify and issue an API key after ETH payment confirmation. Distinguishes from sibling tools like checkout, pricing, and status.

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?

Explicitly specifies the condition for use ('After ETH payment to treasury is confirmed'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the action 'Build' and payment flow, but lacks details on side effects, authorization requirements, what is created, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise, with two front-loaded sentences. No wasted words; every sentence provides essential 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?

Despite low complexity (2 params, no nested objects), the description lacks return value details, error handling, or full process explanation. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed for reliable use.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It hints at the 'tier' parameter through 'Pro/Team' but does not describe the 'owner' parameter at all. No explicit mapping to schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb 'Build' and identifies the resource as 'on-chain ETH payment plan for Pro/Team'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'stocktoken_access_activate' by specifying the subsequent step.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for Pro/Team tiers) and the next step ('After user pays, call stocktoken_access_activate'). While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context of payment plan creation is 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists pricing and payment method for agents, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no side effects) or mention authentication requirements.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, including the payment detail. No unnecessary 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: pricing tiers and agent payment method. It could be more complete by hinting at the output format (e.g., JSON), but it covers the essential information for a simple listing 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. According to the rule, baseline is 4 when no params exist.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'Free / Pro / Team pricing'. It adds unique details ('ETH on-chain, no Stripe') and explains the purpose of showing how agents pay for write tools. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocktoken_fees or stocktoken_subscription_tiers.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are tools for subscription status, fees, and tiers, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Check paid access' but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the owner parameter is omitted, if authentication is required, or what the response contains. This lack of detail leaves the agent guessing.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key details without losing conciseness.

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 a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only the basic purpose. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or usage context, which are important for safe and effective invocation.

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 one optional parameter 'owner' with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining that omitting owner checks the current API key context, which partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not specify the expected format or provide examples, so the benefit is limited.

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 checks paid access either for the current API key context or a specified wallet owner. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('paid access'), and context from sibling tool names (e.g., 'stocktoken_access_activate', 'stocktoken_access_checkout') implies this is for status, not actions. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from these 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stocktoken_access_activate' or 'stocktoken_access_checkout'. The description only states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, typical use cases, or 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only preview, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it creates any state. The phrase 'vault scaffold preview' is ambiguous without further explanation.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose. It is front-loaded with key verbs and nouns, with no extraneous 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 no output schema, the description should clarify the return format or structure. It states it previews 'constituents and live prices', but omits details like whether it returns a list or a single object, and does not explain 'vault scaffold preview'. Some context is provided but gaps remain.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It provides context about what the tool does, meeting the baseline expectation for no-parameter tools.

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 previews 'AI mega-cap basket constituents and live Chainlink prices', specifying both the resource and action. The verb 'preview' distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocktoken_get or stocktoken_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implicitly suggests read-only usage via 'preview', but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it compared to siblings like stocktoken_get or stocktoken_simulate.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool builds a plan and does not sign/broadcast, but does not clarify whether it modifies state, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. More detail is needed for full 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information (build plan, approve+swap, not sign/broadcast, chain). It earns its keep but could be slightly improved by adding brief parameter hints without losing conciseness.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or how to use required parameters. Significant gaps remain for a tool of this nature.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about any of the 9 parameters (owner, tokenIn, amountIn, etc.). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents to guess parameter meaning.

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 builds a non-custodial transaction plan for approve and swap via best venue, and specifies it does not sign or broadcast on chain 4663. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like stocktoken_quote or stocktoken_explain_routing.

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 use to get a plan before signing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., sufficient balance, existing approval). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on usage boundaries.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool explains something, implying it is read-only and non-destructive, but it does not confirm whether it has side effects, requires authentication, or how it interacts with external systems. Minimal 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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it highly efficient.

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 is very brief for a decision-support tool. It does not explain what form the explanation takes (e.g., text, structured data) and lacks details on how the routing decision is made. Without an output schema, the agent has no guidance on what to expect from 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?

The input schema has one parameter ('userIntent') with 0% coverage (no description in schema). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Given low schema coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Explain when to use AI Agent Tokenized Stock OS vs Robinhood official Agentic Trading MCP vs raw Uniswap/0x.' It uses a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('routing' between three systems), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which are mostly transactional or access-related.

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 context: when a user needs to decide between three trading systems. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list contains many other tools, and this is the only one for routing explanation, making the context 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only, summary operation without side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that no state changes occur or mention any required permissions, which would elevate the score to 5.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb 'Summarize' and conveys all necessary information without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 and no output schema, the description is fully complete for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose. It covers both fee events and monetization status, providing sufficient context to choose this tool over others.

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 description need not explain parameters. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds meaning by explaining what the tool summarizes. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and this description meets that standard.

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 specifies the action 'Summarize' and the precise resources 'disclosed AATOS execution fee events' and 'on-chain monetization status (treasury / ETH fees)'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stocktoken_metrics or stocktoken_price, which cover different aspects.

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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any prerequisites. For a tool with zero parameters, the usage is straightforward, but the lack of guidance on context (e.g., 'use to check fee status') is a minor gap.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool scans pools on a specific chain, implying a read operation, but does not detail any side effects, rate limits, or response structure. For a simple query tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 (two sentences), front-loads the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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's low complexity (no output schema, two parameters), the description covers the core purpose and chain context. However, it lacks parameter details and any mention of return values or behavior, making it incomplete for an agent without additional context.

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 two parameters with zero description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It only says 'between two tokens' without specifying expected formats (addresses vs symbols), constraints, or examples. This leaves ambiguity about what values tokenA and tokenB accept.

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's action ('Scan for Uniswap V3 pools'), the target resources ('between two tokens'), and the specific chain ('on chain 4663'). It also provides a use case hint ('Useful when APIs block Stock Tokens'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover access, pricing, subscriptions, etc.

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 states when the tool is useful ('when APIs block Stock Tokens'), giving a clear context for its use. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would strengthen this dimension.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies this as a read operation ('Get metadata') and specifies the network and input types. However, it does not disclose how invalid symbols or addresses are handled, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences (24 words). The first sentence clearly states the action and inputs, and the second adds the use case. No filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides all necessary information: what it does, inputs, network, and a practical use case. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without confusion. It is complete for its complexity level.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds significant value by providing examples (NVDA) and clarifying that the input can be a ticker or contract address, as well as specifying the network (Robinhood Chain 4663) and the notion of 'canonical' tokens. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 action ('Get metadata'), the resource ('one canonical Stock Token or core asset'), and the inputs (symbol or contract address). It also specifies the network (Robinhood Chain 4663) and gives a concrete example (NVDA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform different operations like listing, pricing, or execution.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use to verify a token is official before trading.' This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., stocktoken_list for a broader view). The guidance is sufficient for a simple lookup tool.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the offchain authorization process and that the user signs and onchain verifies later. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (none expected) or auth requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 efficiently conveys the main purpose. However, it could include a bit more context about the parameters without becoming verbose.

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 8 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter relationships, or the structure of the typed data. For a complex tool, this is inadequate.

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 description provides no explanation of the 8 parameters, and schema description coverage is only 13%. Key parameters like sessionId, owner, tokenIn, amountIn, etc., are not clarified. The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 builds EIP-712 typed data for an agent trade intent, specifying the offchain authorization nature. It distinguishes this tool from siblings that handle other operations like access, pricing, or execution.

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 creating offchain authorization data but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context signals a specialized tool, but guidance is minimal.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only query (live fills) but does not detail side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or return format. The description offers basic transparency but falls short of fully compensating for the lack of 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 just two sentences, front-loading the key definition and then the usage directive. No redundant words; every sentence contributes to clarity. Excellent conciseness.

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 no annotations, the description should provide more details about the output or behavior. It mentions 'matrix' but doesn't specify what form the data takes (e.g., list, table, etc.). This leaves some gaps for an agent expecting richer documentation.

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 is 4. The description adds value by implicitly defining the scope (major USDG pairs on chain 4663), which is not in the schema. This context aids understanding of what the tool operates on.

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's a liquidity/route matrix for major USDG pairs on chain 4663, with the explicit purpose to find which Stock Tokens have live AMM fills. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocktoken_price or stocktoken_quote, which serve 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 provides a specific use case ('Use to know which Stock Tokens have live AMM fills'), giving some guidance on when to use it. However, it does not mention any exclusions or compare to alternatives, leaving the selection partially to the agent's inference.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares what tokens are listed and the chain, implying a read-only list operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any side effects. Good but could be more explicit.

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 sentences delivering purpose and usage guidelines efficiently. Slight branding in first sentence ('AI Agent Tokenized Stock OS:') but does not waste words. Good structure with front-loaded purpose.

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?

Covers purpose, scope, and usage caveats. Missing return format or pagination details, but as a list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for selection and invocation.

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% with the 'kind' parameter well-described in schema (enum values and filter default). Description adds context that kinds map to stock, etf, stable, wrapped_native but does not add beyond schema. 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 it lists canonical tokenized stocks, ETFs, USDG, and WETH on Robinhood Chain ID 4663, distinguishing it from US brokerage equities. Specific verb 'list' and resource 'canonical tokenized stocks'.

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?

Explicitly indicates use for AI agents trading tokenized equities/RWAs and warns against using for US brokerage equities, directing to Robinhood Trading MCP. Also notes that only registry addresses are real tokenized stocks.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. However, it only mentions 'operational metrics' without disclosing return format, side effects, or data scope, which is inadequate for a metrics tool.

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 sentence, but it is too vague to earn its place. It lacks structure and fails to provide essential details, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what metrics are provided, how to interpret results, or any behavioral traits, leaving substantial gaps for an 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. The baseline is 4, and the description does not add but also does not detract. It is acceptable given no parameters.

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 'Operational metrics for this AI Agent Tokenized Stock OS process' but lacks a specific verb or resource. It is vague and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like stocktoken_price or stocktoken_fees which also likely provide metrics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context or exclusions, leaving the agent without information to decide between this and sibling tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains that the tool builds a plan (non-custodial, involves approval and deposit) and does not broadcast. However, it does not disclose what the plan consists of (e.g., typed data, signatures), side effects, or required permissions. More detail on the output or state changes would improve 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 a single sentence that packs key elements (action, resource, target, caveat) without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain what a 'plan' is, how to use the result, or the return format. For a plan-building tool, context on subsequent steps (e.g., execution via stocktoken_execute_plan) 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 50%: assets and assetsHuman have descriptions, but owner and approveMax do not. The description adds no parameter-level information, leaving the required 'owner' and the 'approveMax' boolean unexplained. It mentions 'approve USDG' but does not map to parameters.

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 action ('build'), the resource ('non-custodial ERC-4626 deposit plan'), and the steps involved ('approve USDG + deposit') into a specific vault. It also distinguishes from broadcasting by noting 'Does NOT broadcast', which differentiates it from sibling tools like stocktoken_execute_plan.

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 that the tool does not broadcast, implying that the plan must be executed separately, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tool for execution (e.g., stocktoken_execute_plan). It also does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over similar ones like stocktoken_morpho_withdraw_plan or stocktoken_subscribe_plan.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation (non-destructive) and specifies the asset and chain. However, it lacks details on permissions, output format, or potential side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No redundant or extraneous 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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, resource, asset, and chain. Minor omission: does not describe the return structure or units, but the tool's simplicity makes it reasonably complete.

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%, with a clear description for the single parameter 'owner'. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting 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 clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('wallet's Morpho Earn share balance and underlying USDG'), and the specific chain (4663). It is distinct from sibling tools which include deposit, withdraw, and status operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stocktoken_morpho_status or stocktoken_morpho_deposit_plan. The description implies it is for reading balances but fails to specify exclusions or provide context for tool 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the returned data but omits details like side effects (none expected), authorization needs, or error 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?

Single, well-structured sentence with key information front-loaded; no wasted 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?

Given no parameters or output schema, the description adequately states the tool's output. It lacks details on return format or potential errors, but is sufficient for a simple status 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 has 0 parameters (100% coverage), so description needn't explain params. It adds context about the returned fields (vault address, TVL, share price), exceeding 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 specifies the protocol (Morpho/Robinhood Earn), chain (4663), and specific data returned (vault address, TVL, share price), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like stocktoken_morpho_position.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; usage is implied by the description but not formally stated.

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?

No annotations provided. Description discloses it is non-custodial and does not broadcast, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or idempotency. For a mutation-like tool, more transparency is needed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action. Very concise, but the brevity sacrifices clarity on parameters and usage, earning a slight deduction.

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?

Tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no sibling tool guidance. Description fails to explain what a 'plan' is, how to interpret parameters, or what the return value is. Incomplete for effective use.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description hints at 'withdraw (by USDG) or redeem (by shares)', mapping roughly to assetsHuman and sharesHuman, but does not explain all parameters or their relationships. Insufficient compensation for missing 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?

Description clearly states it builds a non-custodial Morpho Earn withdraw/redeem plan. The verb 'Build' and resource 'plan' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like deposit_plan and execute_plan by naming 'withdraw' and noting it does not broadcast, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'Does NOT broadcast' implies it should be used before executing, but no explicit context on when to use vs alternatives like execute_plan or deposit_plan. No prerequisites or conditions stated.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or produces on-chain transactions, nor does it describe side effects, authorization needs, or return format.

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 conveys the core function without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain what the 'prepared' data looks like or how it should be used. It omits prerequisites (e.g., need for a wallet connection) and error conditions, making it incomplete for agent use.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds minor context (e.g., permitData is normalized for signing), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 prepares Permit2 approval and optional typed data for Uniswap-style flows on a specific chain. The verb 'prepare' is appropriate, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocktoken_intent_typed_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 hints at usage for Uniswap-style flows on chain 4663, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other preparation or signing tools). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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?

No annotations provided, but description indicates a read operation. It lists policy components but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate for a simple getter.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word is informative, no 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 and no output schema, description covers purpose and key fields. Could mention return format or when this policy applies, but sufficient for a simple getter.

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?

No parameters in schema (100% coverage). Description adds no parameter meaning beyond what schema provides, baseline 3.

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 it gets the current AI agent policy and lists specific fields (max notional, slippage, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stocktoken_policy_set.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Does not mention when not to use or compare to similar getter tools among the 30+ siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so description bears full burden. Only states 'Update' with no disclosure of destructiveness, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

A single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose. However, it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to clarify how parameters interact or what the result of an update is, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of parameters beyond the schema itself. Parameter names like 'killed', 'allowedSymbols', and 'maxNotionalUsd' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description could clarify their semantics, especially for 'killed'.

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 states 'Update session policy guardrails for AI Agent Tokenized Stock OS', which clearly identifies the verb (Update) and resource (session policy guardrails). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stocktoken_policy_get and stocktoken_session_update, though 'guardrails' is somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like stocktoken_policy_get or stocktoken_session_update. No prerequisites, restrictions, or when-not-to-use context provided.

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?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that the price already includes a corporate-action multiplier when Chainlink is configured, which is critical for interpretation. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, but for a read-only price tool, this is sufficient.

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 brief (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and 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 output schema, the description should specify the return shape. It mentions two outputs (price and uiMultiplier) but not their structure or order. For a simple tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity.

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 sole parameter symbolOrAddress has 0% schema documentation. The description does not explain that it accepts a token symbol or contract address; it only references the asset type generically. This leaves the agent without format or validation guidance.

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 reads USD price and uiMultiplier for a specific asset (Robinhood Stock Token on chain 4663), using a direct verb ('Read') and resource, and distinguishes it from generic price tools by recommending preference for Stock Tokens.

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 'Prefer this over generic price tools for Stock Tokens' and 'Not for brokerage stock quotes', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what is returned but does not disclose behavior beyond that—such as the nature of 'metadata', potential side effects (none expected), or any dependencies. The description is minimal.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. No wasted 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?

Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the return format or fields are. It lists the entities but not the structure or any additional context. For a simple metadata tool with no parameters, this is adequate but could be more informative.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately says nothing about parameters.

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 verb 'Return' and the specific resources ('Uniswap Universal Router, PoolManager, WETH, USDG, and feed source metadata') and scope ('for Robinhood Chain 4663'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on other functionalities like access, fees, pricing, etc.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to get protocol metadata for a specific chain) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives. While it's clear this is a metadata retrieval tool, no exclusionary context is given.

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 outlines the venue order but does not explain what 'indicative' means, what happens when 'firm' is true/false, or any side effects. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but is insufficient.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it uses dense jargon ('Uniswap Trading API', '0x RFQ', 'Chain 4663') without explanation, which may confuse the agent.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, prerequisites, or how to interpret the quote, leaving significant gaps for a complex 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 description coverage is only 13%, and the tool description adds no meaning to parameters beyond mentioning 'firm'. Most parameters (tokenIn, tokenOut, amountIn, etc.) lack clarification in both schema and description.

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 provides a multi-venue quote from Uniswap, 0x RFQ, and Chainlink oracle-indicative on Chain 4663. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stocktoken_price' which might offer simpler quotes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a 'firm' parameter but does not explain when to set it or avoid it. No exclusion criteria or context for usage.

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?

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Mentions persistence to DATA_DIR and non-custodial nature, but fails to disclose side effects, required authentication, rate limits, or behavior on existing sessions.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence) but sacrifices clarity and completeness. Every sentence should earn its place, but here it fails to provide necessary 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?

Given high complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. Does not explain return value, error scenarios, or how the session is used after creation.

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%. Description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (owner, ttlHours, sessionKey, permissions, etc.), leaving agents to guess their semantics and required format.

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 'Create a durable agent session with scoped permissions', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes 'Non-custodial' from potential custodial alternatives, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling session 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, expected user role, or comparison with other session tools like stocktoken_session_update or stocktoken_session_kill.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only says 'kill immediately', which hints at destructiveness but fails to explain side effects, such as loss of session state or impact on active processes.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief for a destructive operation. It lacks necessary detail without being overly verbose.

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 1 required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome of killing a session or any error conditions.

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 1 parameter (sessionId) with type string and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what sessionId is, expected format, or how to obtain it.

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 action ('Kill') and the resource ('agent session'), and adds 'immediately (kill switch)' to emphasize urgency. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocktoken_session_create or stocktoken_session_update.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as stocktoken_session_update. There is no mention of prerequisites, cautions, or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool lists sessions with an optional filter, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, response format, or any side effects. For a listing operation, read-only behavior is typical but not explicit.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and concise. No extraneous words. While brief, it efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description is minimally adequate for a simple list tool but lacks details about authentication, pagination, or ordering. Among many sibling tools, more context would help.

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 description mentions the 'owner' parameter and its filtering role, which adds meaning beyond the schema (which only provides type 'string'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'agent sessions', which clearly states the tool's purpose. It also mentions the optional filter by owner. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools explicitly, though the name implies it's distinct among various session-related 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `stocktoken_session_create` or `stocktoken_list`. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'update limits/permissions' but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires specific permissions, or what happens on invalid input. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, given the tool's complexity, it could use more detail without being verbose.

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 is too brief for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema. It lacks information on required context (session must exist), error handling, return values, and parameter constraints. The agent would need to infer or experiment.

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%. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the enum values for permissions, the constraints (exclusiveMinimum for numbers), or the relationship between parameters (e.g., maxNotionalUsd vs maxDailyNotionalUsd).

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('limits/permissions on an existing session'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like stocktoken_session_create (create) and stocktoken_session_kill (delete).

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 purpose is clear, and it's implicitly the right tool for modifying a session. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., if session doesn't exist) and does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a pre-trade check on allowlists, policies, and quote integrity, indicating it is a read-only simulation. It does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects, but the core behavior is adequately communicated.

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 tool's purpose and key aspects efficiently with no wasted 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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It covers only the high-level purpose and omits parameter details, return value, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter's meaning or format. Required parameters (tokenIn, tokenOut, notionalUsd) are not detailed, leaving an agent to guess their purpose.

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 simulates a pre-trade check for a tokenized stock swap, listing specific checks (allowlist, policy, multi-venue quote integrity). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like stocktoken_quote (which provides a quote) and stocktoken_execute_plan (which executes).

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 this tool is used for simulation before a trade, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., stocktoken_quote for a simple quote). No exclusions or alternative tools are named, but the context is clear enough for an 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses non-custodial nature and treasury payment on chain 4663, but does not explain required authorization, idempotency, limits, or what happens on duplicate plans.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks explanation for the required 'owner' parameter and does not describe return behavior or side effects beyond treasury payment.

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 67%; descriptions for tier and ethAmount add value by clarifying preference. However, the required 'owner' parameter has no schema description and is not explained in the tool description, leaving a gap.

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 verb 'Build' and the resource 'non-custodial ETH subscription plan', and provides options (tier or ethAmount). It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscription_status which query plans, but does not explicitly differentiate from execute_plan.

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 this tool is for creating a new subscription plan, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools helps, but no direct 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?

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important traits such as read-only nature, auth requirements, output format, or failure modes; only 'check' implies reading but is not explicit.

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?

Single sentence with immediate verb and object, parenthetical detail added without clutter. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a simple one-parameter tool, but missing output description and edge-case handling; no output schema or annotations to compensate.

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 0% and description does not define 'owner' explicitly; it only hints that it's for a wallet, leaving ambiguity about whether it's an address or ID.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'on-chain subscription status for a wallet', distinguishing it from sibling tools like stocktoken_subscription_tiers which handle tiers.

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 only mentions a deployment requirement but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or context for use.

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?

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavioral traits: it states the tool lists on-chain tiers and specifies ETH payment. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, rate limits, or the exact nature of returned data (e.g., list of objects with IDs).

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 sentence with an additional clarifying fragment. Every element serves a purpose, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 output schema and zero annotations, the description does not explain return format or fields. It adequately states what the tool lists but lacks detail on output structure, which is needed for full completeness.

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?

Since the input schema has no parameters (baseline 4), the description adds meaningful context by specifying the subject (AATOS on-chain subscription tiers) and payment method. This clarifies what the listing covers beyond the empty schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'AATOS on-chain subscription tiers'. It further distinguishes from siblings by noting payment method (ETH to treasury) and explicitly excluding Stripe, which is unique among sibling 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stocktoken_subscription_status or stocktoken_subscribe_plan. The description implies a listing function but does not provide usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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?

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects.

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?

Single concise sentence front-loading the purpose ('Full system status') and listing key fields. No wasted 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields. Could be improved by mentioning return format or that it is a diagnostic/snapshot 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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 returns 'Full system status' and lists specific components (secrets, venues, chain, version, session count, fees). This distinguishes it from sibling status tools like stocktoken_access_status and stocktoken_morpho_status.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling status tools, the description should explicitly state ideal use cases or when to prefer other tools.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only lists acceptable assets and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, returns static or live data, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key information about what the tool returns. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns. However, it could be more explicit about the output format or that no input is required, which would make it even more self-contained.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns (list of accepted assets). It provides context beyond the empty schema, earning a baseline 4.

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 what the tool does: it enumerates the assets that the AATOS tip wallet can accept, specifically native ETH, any ERC-20 on Robinhood Chain 4663, and optionally native BTC. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stocktoken_tip_plan and stocktoken_tip_presets, which handle other aspects of tipping.

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 that the tool is used to check acceptable assets before tipping, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. For a tool with many siblings, more guidance would be beneficial.

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?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds 'User must confirm. Never coerce.' but does not explain side effects, permissions, or what the plan entails (e.g., mutability, financial impact). Inadequate for a tool likely involving transactions.

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?

Concise one-liner with structured fragments. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose, asset options, confirmation requirement. No redundant 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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, description covers main usage (assets, amounts, confirmation) but omits explanation of owner field and what the plan produces. Sufficient for basic use but incomplete for full 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?

Schema coverage is high (83%), baseline 3. Description clarifies default asset and relationship between amount and presets, but adds minimal beyond schema. No mention of owner or memo fields.

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?

Clearly states 'Build OPTIONAL tip plan' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like stocktoken_execute_plan (executes a plan) and stocktoken_tip_assets (lists assets).

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 context on asset options and presets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_plan. No when-not or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Tips never required', which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not disclose side effects (none for a list operation), permissions needed, or rate limits. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with verb 'List', no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: lists presets, lists accepted asset types, and notes tips are never required.

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 output schema, the description explains the output includes tip presets and accepted assets, specifying ETH, ERC-20 on chain 4663, and optional native BTC. It does not detail the format or structure, but for a simple list tool, this is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4 per rules. Description adds no parameter info (not needed), and it adds meaning about the output (the list includes presets and accepted assets). Schema coverage is 100% trivially.

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 the tool lists optional tip presets (specifically ETH) and the assets the tip wallet accepts (ETH, ERC-20 on chain 4663, optional native BTC). The verb 'list' and resource 'tip presets and accepted assets' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stocktoken_tip_assets and stocktoken_tip_plan by focusing on presets and accepted asset types together.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocktoken_tip_assets or stocktoken_tip_plan. The description implies it is for viewing presets and accepted assets, but does not state when not to use it or what other tools cover different aspects.

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?

No annotations provided; description implies a read operation ('value') but does not disclose authorization needs or rate limits. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 sentences with no wasted words; purpose and context are front-loaded.

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 valuation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the chain, wallet address, and asset types. Missing output format details, but sufficient for core 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?

Schema coverage is 50%; description adds context by listing asset types (Stock Token, ETF, USDG) but does not fully explain the 'symbols' array parameter or its 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 the tool values a wallet's balances of Stock Token, ETF, and USDG on a specific chain, distinguishing it from siblings like stocktoken_price or stocktoken_get.

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?

Explicitly mentions use for portfolio analysis of onchain RWA holdings, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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