Quick single-pair diagnostic. IC with risk prediction for both model classes. Include variances for sign detectability. Requires X-Wallet header with your EVM wallet address (0x...). First 5 queries are free trial.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| i | Yes | First variable name | |
| j | Yes | Second variable name | |
| variance_i | No | ||
| variance_j | No | ||
| sample_size | Yes | ||
| coupling_value | Yes | IC or coupling value |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and it does disclose important behavioral constraints: it requires an X-Wallet header with EVM address and notes a 5-query free trial. It also hints at output content ('IC with risk prediction', 'variances for sign detectability'). It does not explicitly state read-only safety, but the diagnostic nature implies a non-mutating operation.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the sentence 'Include variances for sign detectability' is awkwardly phrased and could be misread as an instruction rather than a description of behavior, slightly detracting from clarity.
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 gives the purpose, authentication requirement, and a hint of outputs, but it lacks details on return structure (no output schema), omits any mention of sample_size, and does not clarify how it differs from sibling diagnostic tools. It is adequate for a simple quick diagnostic but leaves notable gaps for full autonomous 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 schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds some context for variance parameters ('variances for sign detectability') and clarifies that the tool deals with IC, but it does not explain sample_size or the exact role of coupling_value beyond what the schema says. Thus it partially compensates for the schema gaps but not fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a 'Quick single-pair diagnostic' that computes IC with risk prediction for both model classes, distinguishing it as a focused diagnostic for a single variable pair. It is more specific than a mere restatement, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for 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 phrase 'Quick single-pair diagnostic' implies its use for quick, focused pair analysis, and the 'first 5 queries are free trial' gives a usage restriction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over tools like factorguide_synergy_detect or factorguide_regime_detect, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: diagnostic, navigation, explanation, regime detection, outcome reporting, payment, and synergy detection. No overlapping purposes; even the two 'detect' tools are clearly separated by domain (regime vs. synergy).
Tool names are prefixed with 'factorguide_' but use a mix of single verbs (diagnose, explain, navigate) and noun_verb (regime_detect, synergy_detect) or verb_noun patterns (report_outcome, submit_payment). No consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern across the set.
With 7 tools, the server covers a well-scoped set of operations for factor analysis guidance. The count is neither too small to be useful nor too large to be unwieldy.
The core workflow (navigate, diagnose, explain, report_outcome, submit_payment) forms a coherent loop for factorization guidance and feedback. Two pending tools (regime_detect, synergy_detect) indicate planned expansion but do not create critical gaps.