trades-runtime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state 'Public' and 'Read-only', which usefully imply no authentication and no mutating side effects, but it provides no further behavioral detail such as response type, stability, or any operational caveats.

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 and front-loads the key facts: resource identity and read-only nature. It contains no filler, though it slightly repeats the tool name ('Trades-Runtime') and could have used the saved space to clarify the resource's purpose.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, public, read-only tool, the description covers the essential safety profile and resource, but it does not state what the response will contain or how this tool relates to its siblings. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about the cite.json content would make the definition fully 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 input schema has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The 'Public ... Read-only' phrasing is consistent with a parameterless fetch operation, and no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 resource (cite.json) and indicates read-only access, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'fetch' and does not explain what the cite.json contains. This makes the tool's purpose understandable but somewhat vague and only weakly differentiates it from sibling tools like trades_runtime_health or trades_runtime_stats.

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 about when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description mentions neither alternative tools nor conditions that would make trades_runtime_cite the appropriate choice, 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states 'Read-only' and 'Does not increment counters,' which are important side-effect guarantees. However, it does not clarify what 'health' means, what the tool checks, or what the response 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 very short and contains no filler, which is appropriate for a parameterless health check. However, the fragmented phrasing 'Trades-Runtime giveaway health' is awkward and could be clearer.

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, no annotations, and no parameter information to lean on, so the description must explain what the tool returns or what 'health' means. It does not, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's actual behavior and result.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema already fully documents the parameter surface.

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 says 'Trades-Runtime giveaway health' but lacks an explicit verb or action, so it does not clearly state what the tool does. It mostly restates the tool name and does not distinguish itself from siblings like trades_runtime_stats or trades_runtime_skill.

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 its siblings, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The only context is 'Read-only' and 'Does not increment counters,' which describe behavior rather than usage conditions.

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 hints that the tool provides a skill markdown document, but it does not state the return format, whether any side effects occur, whether authentication is needed, or what the agent should expect when invoking it. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation 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 very short and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being a fragment. It lacks a clear subject-verb structure and does not convey enough information to justify its brevity. This is closer to under-specification than effective 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or how it behaves. 'Agent skill markdown for the public giveaway Worker' is too vague to give the agent enough context to know when to call it or what to do with the result. The sibling tool names suggest a family of runtime utilities, but this description does not situate itself among them.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter meanings to explain, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema detail.

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 noun phrase—'Agent skill markdown for the public giveaway Worker'—rather than a statement with a verb and resource. It restates the word 'skill' from the tool name and vaguely suggests the tool provides markdown, but it never explicitly says what the tool does, what it returns, or how it differs from the sibling tools (health, stats, cite).

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 for when to use this tool versus the siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The agent is left 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only' and 'Does not increment counters,' which are important safety guarantees. It does not describe the return format or any error behavior, but for a simple read operation, the core behavioral traits are covered.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Honest KV view/download counts') and then adds essential behavioral qualifiers. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the return data looks like. It does not describe the shape of the counts (e.g., JSON structure, fields, or whether they are aggregated). While the operation is simple, an agent might need to know the output format to process it correctly. This gap prevents a higher score.

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. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters (correctly), as none exist. It effectively compensates for the lack of a schema by providing context on what the tool measures.

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 precisely states the tool's function: 'view/download counts with human/bot split' for a KV store. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (skill, health, cite) which serve different purposes. The verb and resource are concrete and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it state any exclusion conditions. However, the distinct focus on stats/logs implicitly signals it is for retrieving counts rather than for skill execution, health checks, or citation tasks. This is sufficient but not proactive.

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