chainpulse — real-time crypto + prediction market data for AI agents

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 feed is aggregated, includes per-coin confidence scores, has ~15s freshness, and costs $0.001 per call via x402. This adequately covers key behavioral traits for an agent to decide usage, though details on error handling or response format are omitted.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, input formats, data characteristics, and cost. No redundant or filler text.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input formats, data freshness, confidence score, and pricing. However, it does not specify the structure of the return value (e.g., an object mapping coin identifiers to price objects), which would help an agent process the output. Still, it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides a description and example for the 'coins' parameter (100% coverage), but the description adds significant value by explaining the accepted formats in detail: major symbols, 'coingecko:<id>', and '<chain>:<tokenAddress>'. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent construct valid inputs.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides 'Real-time USD spot prices for crypto assets' and specifies the input formats (symbols, CoinGecko IDs, chain:address). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like defi_tvl, gas_prices, and service_info.

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 for crypto price queries and notes it is a paid tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Given sibling tools cover different domains, the purpose alone provides implied context, but no explicit guidance 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 carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool costs $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base). This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand cost implications. However, it does not mention data freshness, rate limits, or 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 two short sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second adds pricing details. It is front-loaded and every word adds value with no unnecessary verbiage.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and pricing. However, it lacks any indication of the return format (e.g., does it return TVL per protocol? total? in what structure?). This gap reduces completeness for an agent trying to invoke 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 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'protocols' parameter (string array of DefiLlama slugs). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides 'current total value locked (USD) for DeFi protocols by DefiLlama slug' with concrete examples (uniswap, aave, lido). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto_prices by focusing on TVL rather than token prices or gas fees.

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 explains what the tool does and that it is paid, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like crypto_prices. The context implies it is for TVL queries, but no direct guidance on exclusions or when-not-to-use 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source ('straight from chain RPC'), payment mechanism, and cost. It also lists the exact data fields returned (gas price, base fee, priority tiers, native token USD price, USD cost). This is good transparency, though it could mention potential staleness or error handling.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and immediately lists chains and data provided. Every clause adds value—no wasted words. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully informs the agent about what data is returned and the cost model. It explains that omitting chains returns all supported chains, which is sufficient for proper 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 only parameter is 'chains' with an array of enums. The description adds meaning by stating 'omit for all supported chains', which directly explains usage. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description provides additional context beyond the enum list.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides live gas prices across multiple chains (ethereum, base, arbitrum, optimism, polygon), including current gas price, base fee, priority fee tiers, native token USD price, and USD cost of transfer. It distinguishes from siblings like crypto_prices and defi_tvl by focusing on gas-specific data for cross-chain comparison.

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 gives context about what the tool returns and the cost ($0.001 per call via x402), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., crypto_prices for token prices). Usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but no direct when-to-use or 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'Free,' hinting at no cost, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication, or return structure.

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?

Description is a single sentence, front-loaded with 'Free.' It is concise but omits possibly useful context. Could be improved without adding length.

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 siblings, the description is too vague. It does not specify what 'service, pricing, and payment details' include, leaving 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?

No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline of 4 applies as description adds no extra meaning needed.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides 'Service, pricing, and payment details for the chainpulse tools on this server,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_prices and defi_tvl which focus on market 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies it is for service-related details, but does not provide conditions or alternatives.

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