obol

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is a simulation (not a real transaction), costs $0.15 USDC on Base, returns verdicts, and never ALLOWs from a partial result. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the underlying mechanics beyond mentioning KyberSwap and GoPlus.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and packs many details into three sentences, but the first sentence is overly long and parenthetical, reducing readability. It could be better structured with bullet points for clarity, though all information is relevant.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the main verdicts (ALLOW, CAUTION, BLOCK) and explains the BLOCK condition, but does not detail the meaning of CAUTION, error scenarios, or the structure of the response. It provides enough for basic use but lacks depth 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 description mentions the two parameters (address, chain) and provides a default chain ('base') and a list of supported chains (base/ethereum/bnb/arbitrum/optimism/polygon). However, it does not clarify what the address represents (e.g., token contract address) or describe any constraints or formats, leaving room for ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool simulates selling a token after purchase to detect honeypots, contrasting with static rug checks. It specifies the resource (token address), verb (simulate sell), and output verdicts (ALLOW|CAUTION|BLOCK), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 after buying a token to verify sellability ('if you BUY this token, can you SELL it back?'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with sibling tools (e.g., check_evm_token, obol_risk_ritual). No exclusions or alternatives are 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cost ($0.20 USDC) and output components, but lacks explicit statements on side effects, idempotency, or whether it is read-only. The information is present but could be more complete.

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, packing key information (content, cost, loop behavior) into one sentence. It is front-loaded with 'OBOL trading tick' and uses no unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how it should be used. It covers the key aspects for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret 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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides a trading tick that includes Bitcoin market regime, broadcast-timing pulse, multi-asset spots, and an action policy. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a loop-polled tick for agent cycles.

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 in an agent loop with 'poll EVERY agent cycle' and 'One settle per loop', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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