FeedOracle Compliance Agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-only and informational ("Explains WHY...") and hints at the output structure, but does not disclose potential limitations, permissions, format details, or error behavior. Minimal but non-negligible context.

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 primary purpose and free of redundant words. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's function, making it exceptionally 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and hints at return structure (dimension-by-dimension breakdown). It is reasonably complete, though it does not specify which dimensions are included. Given simplicity, the gap is acceptable.

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 describes the only parameter, "symbol", as "Token symbol" with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Explains") and clearly identifies the resource (compliance grade) plus the nature of the output (dimension-by-dimension breakdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mica_status or document_compliance that may simply report the grade without causal breakdown.

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 the use case: when you need reasons behind a compliance grade. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or related tools. It is implied rather than explicit.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It only says the chain is 'cryptographic' and 'full', providing no details about whether this is a read operation, what the output structure is, whether it verifies hashes, or any side effects. This is a minimal functional statement, not 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core concept. The second sentence is a fragment but adds regulatory context. While concise, it lacks any structural detail (e.g., return value, use cases) that would be expected for a cryptographic tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the provenance chain actually provides. It omits the content of the chain, whether it verifies or just retrieves, how to interpret the result, and any specifics of the EU AI Act requirement. This is insufficient for a tool with even moderate 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?

Schema coverage is only 50% (symbol is described, frameworks is not), and the description adds no information about either parameter. It fails to explain what 'symbol' refers to or what 'frameworks' does, leaving half the parameters semantically unclear. The description does not compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 names a specific resource ('cryptographic provenance chain for evidence data') and indicates scope (EU AI Act explainability), which is fairly clear. However, it lacks a verb and does not strongly distinguish itself from sibling tools like audit_query or evidence_profile, which could also deal with provenance.

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 mention of 'EU AI Act explainability' implies a compliance-oriented use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ai_explain or audit_query. It does not state exclusions or preferred conditions, leaving usage context under-specified.

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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool automatically routes to correct APIs, which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the response contains. This leaves important safety and outcome information undisclosed.

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 primary purpose and followed by a concise behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 is relatively simple with only two parameters, and the schema is complete. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return format and safety information. It is sufficient for selection and basic invocation but not fully complete for an agent expecting clear behavioral contracts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters themselves, relying on the schema's clear definitions of 'question' and 'symbol.' It does not introduce any ambiguity but also does not add value 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 identifies a specific verb ('query') and resource ('evidence') and adds a distinctive behavioral feature ('Routes plain-English questions to correct APIs automatically'). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools, but the natural language angle clearly separates it from more structured tools like audit_query or compliance_preflight.

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: when you have a plain-English question about evidence. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use audit_query for structured queries' or 'use ai_explain for explanations.' This is adequate but leaves room for clearer direction.

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 discloses that the tool creates a tamper-proof entry, implying immutability, and mentions evidence chain, indicating linkage to evidence IDs. However, it does not disclose permissions, failure modes, or what the entry contains.

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 primary action and resource. 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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is just two sentences. It does not explain most parameters, return values, or side effects, making it inadequate for a tool of this 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?

Schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only contextualizes evidence_request_ids through 'evidence chain' but leaves other parameters (action_taken, jurisdiction, target_asset, decision_type) unexplained.

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 logs agent decisions with an evidence chain and creates a tamper-proof audit entry. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_query and audit_verify, which suggest reading/verifying rather than writing.

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 the use case: logging agent decisions with evidence chains. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_query or audit_verify, and no exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return of a 'chain-linked decision log' but does not clarify read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what 'chain-linked' means in practice.

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 and front-loaded, using two sentences without wasted words. However, brevity comes at the cost of missing important details, though that issue is captured under other dimensions.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It lacks parameter guidance, return format details, and context about the audit trail domain, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters (client_id, limit, target_asset). The schema only gives types and defaults, so the description adds no semantic value to aid correct invocation.

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 ('Query') and the resource ('agent's audit trail history'), with a distinctive feature ('chain-linked decision log') that suggests a unique output format. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic audit tools, though it does not explicitly reference 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_log' or 'audit_verify'. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, 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 provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it checks hash linkage for tampering, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what happens when tampering is detected. This leaves the safety and failure behavior largely implicit.

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 with the main action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and contains no redundant or filler wording.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It explains the core purpose but omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral context such as return format, errors, or side effects, leaving a knowledgeable agent with significant gaps.

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 has one required parameter (client_id) with zero schema description coverage. The tool description never mentions this parameter, providing no insight into its expected format, meaning, or constraints. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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

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

The description states a specific action ('Verify audit chain integrity') with a clear resource (audit chain) and explains the mechanism ('Checks chain hash linkage for tampering'). This distinguishes it from other audit-related tools like audit_log or audit_query, which focus on recording or retrieving logs.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'Verify' implies usage for integrity checks, but the description never states when it should be chosen over siblings like audit_query or ai_provenance, nor does it mention any 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return envelope (PASS/WARN/BLOCK with reason_codes, sources, confidence) and the evaluation dimensions. While it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'pre-flight check' and the output description, providing adequate transparency for a non-mutating 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output format; the second clarifies the exact checks included. Every word earns its place, achieving high information density.

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 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functional contract: what it returns and what it evaluates. It lacks some positional context relative to siblings (e.g., why choose this over mica_full_pack or custody_risk), but the 'in one call' note partially addresses that. The missing output schema is mitigated by describing the key response fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions the three check categories but does not map them to action, jurisdiction, or token_symbol. Nonetheless, the schema descriptions are sufficient, so no exceptional credit or penalty is warranted.

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 performs a 'Pre-flight regulatory check' and specifies its output (PASS/WARN/BLOCK with reason_codes, sources, confidence). It enumerates the checks covered (MiCA authorization, evidence quality, custody risk), which distinguishes it from more focused siblings like custody_risk or mica_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?

The phrase 'Pre-flight' establishes a clear temporal context (use before an action/transaction). 'Checks ... in one call' implies it is a combined alternative to invoking multiple individual tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states what is assessed but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or what the output format is.

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 short sentences immediately front-load the purpose. There is no filler or redundancy, making the description appropriately 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?

Tool has only one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not state what the response will contain or how results are structured. It is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves output behavior implicit.

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 single parameter `protocol` is fully described in the schema as 'Protocol name or slug' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies tool as custody and counterparty risk assessment, mentioning SIFI status and concentration risk. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like market_liquidity, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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 when-to-use or alternative instructions are provided. The description implies usage when evaluating custody/counterparty risk, but does not reference related sibling tools such as significant_issuer or reserve_quality.

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 carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a topical scope. It does not specify whether the operation is read-only, what output format is returned, or whether any side effects or permissions are involved.

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 filler or redundant content. It is compact and front-loads the most relevant regulatory references.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize behavior. It does not state what action the tool performs or what the response represents, though the single-parameter schema reduces 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 schema already documents the single parameter token_symbol with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names specific compliance artifacts (recovery plans, redemption plans, annual audit status) under MiCA Articles 29/30/55, giving the tool a clear regulatory scope that distinguishes it from generic siblings like mica_status. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'lists,' so the action remains implicit.

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 compliance_preflight, mica_status, or significant_issuer. The topic is implied but no exclusions or alternative references are offered.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the fact that the bundle is 'signed' and lists included frameworks, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what prerequisites exist, or any side effects or auth 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 very concise at two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description leaves unanswered questions about the return format, how the bundle is signed, and when to use this vs. the many specialized sibling tools. It provides only a minimal sketch of the tool's behavior and 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: asset is documented, frameworks is not. The description partially compensates by naming the frameworks (MiCA, DORA, RWA, Macro), which maps to the frameworks parameter, but it does not clarify the asset parameter beyond what the schema's enum already provides.

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 this tool aggregates evidence across multiple frameworks (MiCA, DORA, RWA, Macro) and returns a signed bundle, which distinguishes it from single-framework or profile-focused siblings. It uses a specific noun phrase but lacks a strong verb, so it doesn't fully capture a precise action.

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 'multi-framework evidence aggregation' implies use when you need several frameworks in one call, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like mica_full_pack or evidence_profile. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of 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 burden. It indicates the tool returns a ranking (not a single-item lookup) and specifies the scope (61 RWA protocols, 105+ stablecoins), which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether the tool reflects real-time data, whether grades are dynamic, or any limitations (e.g., staleness, completeness). It is not misleading, but could be more 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?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the core function and scope. It is concise and front-loaded. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it doesn't provide any additional context that might be useful (e.g., what 'evidence grade' means), but it avoids 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?

The tool is relatively simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description gives the core ranking concept and universe size, which is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain what an 'evidence grade' is or how the leaderboard is ordered (e.g., best to worst), but the grade A-F notation implies an ordering. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single optional parameter `top_n` with a default of 15. The description does not mention this parameter at all, and schema coverage is 0%. However, the parameter name and default are self-explanatory, and since there is only one parameter, the lack of description is a minor gap. The tool's core function (ranking) makes the parameter's purpose clear.

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 ranks protocols by evidence grade (A-F) across a defined universe of 61 RWA protocols and 105+ stablecoins. It identifies the resource (evidence leaderboard) and the action (ranking by grade), but it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like evidence_profile or evidence_bundle, though those names imply different scopes.

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 the tool is used to get an overview of top protocols by evidence grade, which is a reasonable use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over evidence_profile or other evidence-related tools, and it doesn't provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough to infer usage, but alternatives are not discussed.

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 the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only reveals output dimensions and grading. It doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, relies on live data, or any limitations or 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and output format, with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and grading scheme.

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 a simple input schema but no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It mentions dimensions and grade but not the structure or interpretation. It also fails to differentiate from sibling evidence tools, leaving the agent uncertain about when this is appropriate.

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 fully describes the single parameter (protocol name/slug) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The tool description doesn't mention the parameter at all, and the baseline of 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 providing a multi-dimensional evidence profile covering governance, custody, and reserves, with a letter grade. It implies comprehensiveness but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like evidence_bundle, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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 transparency burden. It describes a read-only scanning action but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, data sources, or output format. The term 'prohibited' indicates a compliance check but adds no behavioral detail.

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, beginning with the legal frame and ending with the action. It is exceptionally concise with no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. Well-structured for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the basic function but lacks return value specification and usage nuance. Given the low complexity, it is minimally adequate but incomplete for an agent needing to interpret the output or understand edge cases.

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 has one parameter, token_symbol, with a description 'Token symbol' (100% coverage). The description adds domain context by referencing issuer-native mechanisms, but it does not elaborate on the parameter's format or constraints beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'scans for issuer-native yield mechanisms (prohibited)' with a specific legal reference to MiCA Art. 23/52. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools. However, it does not specify what the scan returns (e.g., boolean, risk score, report), so purpose is clear but not fully complete.

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. The phrase 'scans for issuer-native yield mechanisms' implies its use for checking tokens for prohibited yield, but there are no exclusions or mentions of overlapping tools like compliance_preflight or mica_full_pack. Usage context is implied, not 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only states that metadata is provided and a trust score/access level is received. It does not mention whether registration is idempotent, updates existing records, requires authentication, or what happens on duplicate registration.

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: two sentences, 14 words, with the purpose front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required inputs, the registration process, the trust score scale, access levels, or any return value format beyond a vague 'receive trust score and access 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only offers the generic phrase 'agent metadata' and does not explain any of the five parameters (agent_name, agent_purpose, owner_org, owner_email, owner_jurisdiction) beyond their property names.

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 registration action ('Know Your Agent registration. Provide agent metadata') and states the outcome (receive trust score and access level). It is distinguishable from siblings like kya_status by focusing on registration, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs to register and receive a trust score/access level. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., kya_status for checking existing registration).

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 the full burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects) or any required permissions beyond the client_id. It also does not disclose what happens on invalid input or rate limits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 lists the exact information the tool provides. There is no fluff or repetition, earning a top score.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core purpose and the key output dimensions (trust level, score breakdown, tool access). It does not describe the response format, but for a simple status check with no nested objects, this is acceptable. A slight gap is that it could mention whether the result is a summary or detailed report, but not critical.

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 for the single parameter 'client_id' with the description 'Your OAuth client_id.' The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it does not exceed the schema's baseline. A score of 3 is warranted.

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 'Check' with a clear resource: 'agent's KYA trust level, score breakdown, and tool access.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like kya_register (likely registration) and other compliance tools. The tool's scope is clearly defined by listing three specific pieces of information.

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 when you need to inspect an agent's KYA status, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kya_register or compliance_preflight. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.

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 the tool performs analysis but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether side effects exist, or what data sources it uses. This lack of behavioral detail is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's safety and operational profile.

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, using only nine words and avoiding any fluff. It effectively communicates the core purpose, though it is a fragment rather than a full sentence, and the MiCA Art. 45 reference may be cryptic for some agents.

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

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

With no output schema or annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain what the analysis returns, how to interpret results, or what 'exit channel analysis' entails. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and understand the outcome.

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 single 'protocol' parameter is fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the parameter is used or what values are expected, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 DEX liquidity depth and exit channel analysis, referencing MiCA Art. 45 for regulatory context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like peg_history or reserve_quality, though it lacks a full verb construction and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The MiCA Art. 45 reference hints at regulatory compliance use cases, but it is too implicit to give an agent clear direction on when to select this 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds context by clarifying that the output is per-article evidence indicators and not a compliance verdict, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, output format, or any limitations, leaving room for more 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 the core purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 having no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return value as 'per-article evidence indicators' and clarifies the scope (12 MiCA articles, one token). It could be more detailed about the nature of the indicators or article names, but for a simple one-parameter tool, the description is nearly 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?

The schema already fully describes token_symbol with examples (EURC, USDC, RLUSD), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 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 provides MiCA article-coverage evidence for one token across 12 articles, using 'Returns' to indicate the action. It distinguishes itself from a compliance verdict and sibling tools like mica_market_overview or mica_status by focusing on per-article evidence, not overall status or market overview.

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 the output is 'for human review - not a compliance verdict,' which provides a clear usage context and an exclusion (not for automated verdicts). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like evidence_bundle or evidence_profile, so it falls short of a 5.

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 available, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists output content. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, may aggregate multiple data sources, or any performance or authentication requirements. This leaves the agent without critical operational context.

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 succinctly captures the tool's purpose and content. Every listed item adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 adequately communicates the tool's scope by listing four key data categories, which helps the agent select it appropriately. However, without an output schema or annotations, it fails to describe the output structure, whether it is a summary or detailed view, or any limitations. This is a clear gap for a no-param tool relying solely on the description.

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 there are no parameter details to add. Following the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 'Full MiCA market status' and lists four specific content areas (peg alerts, significant issuers, interest violations, stale audits). This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like peg_deviation or interest_check, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 mica_status or mica_full_pack. The description implies comprehensiveness but does not state scenarios, exclusions, or when a more specific tool would be 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 provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds the useful fact that the status is cross-referenced with ESMA/EBA registers, which implies an external data source. However, it does not mention whether the data is real-time or cached, what happens for unsupported tokens, or any rate limits or side effects. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple read-only status 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 extremely concise, using a single sentence fragment that conveys the core purpose and a key detail (cross-referencing). Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded. No unnecessary fluff or filler is present.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what status values are returned (e.g., 'authorized', 'pending', 'not authorized') or how errors are handled. For a status-checking tool, this is a notable omission but not a fatal one.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides full coverage of the token_symbol parameter with an example and description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resource as the MiCA EU authorization status for a token, with the cross-referencing detail adding specificity. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check', making it slightly less direct than a full command-style description. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing narrowly on authorization status, though it does not 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as mica_full_pack or significant_issuer. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context clues about which tool is appropriate for a given scenario. The only implied usage is for checking MiCA status, but that is not explicit.

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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only provides the minimal trait of being 'real-time'. It does not mention data sources, update frequency, error handling, or interpretation of the deviation value, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 core purpose. Every word is meaningful, and there is no extraneous detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

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

Although the tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, the description does not clarify what the peg deviation output looks like (e.g., percentage, basis points), nor does it mention any limitations or edge cases. Without an output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value, but it falls short.

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 fully describes the token_symbol parameter with examples. The description adds the phrase 'any stablecoin', which broadens the scope beyond the examples, but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns the real-time peg deviation for any stablecoin, which is a specific function. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool peg_history by emphasizing 'real-time', and the mention of 'MiCA Art. 35' adds regulatory context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like peg_history. It implies usage for current peg deviation but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or naming of alternative tools for other scenarios.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it is historical data, implying read-only, but does not disclose any limitations (e.g., token support, data source, update frequency) or explain whether the entire 30-day history is returned in one response or paginated. The MICA Art. 35 reference adds regulatory context but no behavioral detail.

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: one short sentence with a period, followed by a regulatory reference. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition. For the amount of information conveyed, it is efficiently structured.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what the response looks like. It only states the time range ('30-day') but not the format, fields, or definition of peg deviation. Given the low complexity (one param), the description should at least clarify what data is returned, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 a description ('Token symbol'), and the baseline for high coverage is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about 'token_symbol' beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the schema's minimal description, but it does not need to per the rubric.

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 indicates the tool provides historical peg deviation data over a 30-day window, which distinguishes it from the sibling 'peg_deviation' (presumably current deviation). The phrase '30-day peg deviation history' is specific about the resource and scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'peg_deviation' might be the complementary current-state tool, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without placing it in a workflow.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output fields (version, status, tool count), giving some transparency, but does not state whether the operation is safe/read-only or if any side effects exist. This is a gap for a 'ping' that might imply network calls.

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 essence without any filler. 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?

The tool is very low complexity (0 params) and the description explains the return contents (version, status, tool count). No output schema exists, so this is sufficient, though it omits details like response format or error behavior, which are minor for such a simple health check.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. It adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to explain.

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 is a server ping returning version, status, and tool count. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which appear to be health checks.

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 is for checking server health/status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. Since there are no similar sibling tools, the lack of alternative references is less impactful, but guidance is still 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, placing full burden on the description. The description reveals no behavioral traits—whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or returns particular data. It is entirely opaque about runtime 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 extremely short but lacks structure and completeness. It resembles a topic tag rather than a tool specification, which is under-specification rather than 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?

Despite low complexity with a single parameter, the description does not adequately specify the tool's purpose, expected output, or relation to other compliance tools. The regulatory citations are unhelpful without explanation, leaving the tool under-specified 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?

The schema includes a description for token_symbol ('Token symbol'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra context or formatting guidance is given.

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 is a fragment referencing regulatory articles ('MiCA Art. 24/25/53') and topics ('reserve management policy', 'Art. 53 eligibility') but does not state a clear action or outcome. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like peg_deviation or custody_risk beyond a general regulatory alignment.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name and regulatory references.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time monitoring' but does not explain what that entails, whether it is a read-only operation, what data it returns, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no other structured behavioral hints.

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 brief and free of fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, and while it is not verbose, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for being under-specified.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and how it behaves, but it does not. It only mentions the general domain (integrity monitoring) without providing any concrete details, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage trivially). According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none, and the tool's purpose is not parameter-dependent.

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 identifies RLUSD as the subject and mentions integrity monitoring and attestation verification, giving a clear topic. However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'check' or 'retrieve') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like audit_verify or compliance_preflight, making the exact purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions is provided, leaving the agent without clear direction on when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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 transparency burden. It discloses the condition and regulatory context but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output to expect, or how the issuer is derived from token_symbol. Partially 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs in the regulation, threshold, and purpose with no unnecessary words. Highly 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?

For a one-parameter predicate, it gives the core criterion but omits return value details and edge cases (e.g., unknown token, missing data). With no output schema, this leaves the agent guessing about the result shape.

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 for token_symbol is 100% and includes its own description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the implicit relationship between token_symbol and the issuer.

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 a specific check ('checks if issuer exceeds €5B reserve threshold') with a specific regulation (MiCA Art. 45/58) and authority (EBA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mica_status or mica_full_pack, which are broader.

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 assessing issuer significance under EBA oversight but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or contrast with sibling tools. An agent can infer when to use it, but it lacks direct guidance.

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