coinverdict

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 excels by detailing the grading rule (kol_directional_v1), the fallback to price_target_v1, the distinction between prospective and backtested records, the prohibition on averaging them, null handling, and the read-only nature. This is exemplary 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return shape, grading rule, fallback, data separation, null handling, and usage caveats. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient despite its length.

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

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

Given there is no output schema, the description fully covers the return structure (with example fields), explains the meaning of key fields (hit_rate_pct, n_total, etc.), handles the rule fallback nuance, and warns about null rates. It is complete for a complex data 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, so the baseline is 4. The description's extensive detail about return fields and data semantics is outside the scope of parameter semantics, but since there are no parameters to explain, the score reflects the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the KOL settlement leaderboard: crypto influencers ranked by their SETTLED hit rate.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_track_record (individual track record) or get_verdict (specific verdicts), making the purpose unmistakable.

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

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

The description provides strong context about when to use this tool (accessing KOL leaderboard data, CoinVerdict-exclusive), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so it falls short of a perfect score yet is still clearly useful.

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 full burden. It states 'Free, read-only, not advice' and outlines return structure. Could mention rate limits or data freshness, but still good.

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?

Concise at three lines, clearly structured with bullet-like return format. Slightly verbose metaphor 'docket' but effective. Front-loaded with 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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return structure ({coins:[{symbol,stance,price_usd,board}], as_of}). Missing error or staleness info, but sufficient for a simple zero-parameter 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies as description adds meaning about the tool's scope and return format beyond 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 clearly states it retrieves today's verdict for all covered coins in one call, listing returned fields (stance, price, W/L/P record). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_verdict' by noting it covers all coins at once.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool instead of calling 'get_verdict' per coin to scan the whole market at once, providing clear when-to-use 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?

The description discloses that it is free and read-only, that verdicts are graded 7 days later against BTC, and specifies the return object. This provides behavioral context beyond the absence of annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently lists key information in two sentences without 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return structure, and behavioral traits, making it 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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but is not needed.

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

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

The description clearly states it retrieves the overall settled scoreboard across all coins, with specific metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_verdict (per coin) and list_coins by specifying 'overall' and 'across all coins'.

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 for a high-level overview but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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?

The description discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, never edited (data integrity), includes misses, and is not advice. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so effectively.

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 for the amount of information it conveys, with a clear front-loading of the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (scoreboard, recent calls, outcomes). For a simple one-parameter tool, this is complete and informative.

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%, but the description adds an example ('symbol e.g. 'BTC'') and clarifies the parameter's purpose. This adds meaning beyond the input schema's minimal definition.

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 retrieves the SETTLED track record for a coin, detailing that it includes W/L/P scoreboard and recent settled calls with outcomes. It distinguishes the tool as CoinVerdict's differentiator, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 mentions the tool is free, read-only, and not advice, but does not explicitly compare it to sibling tools like get_verdict or get_receipts. Usage context is implied through the focus on historical track record, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the verdict is refreshed daily, free, and not investment advice. It also outlines the output structure, providing reasonable transparency for a safe read operation. However, it omits any rate limits or required permissions.

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 (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: what is returned, sample symbols, output components, and meta-info (refreshed daily, free, disclaimer). No redundant or vague content.

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 (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It fully explains the input (coin symbol), the output structure (stance, dimensions, levels, link), and additional properties (daily update, cost, disclaimer). No missing critical details.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter, the description compensates by providing concrete examples (BTC, ETH, SOL) and indicating the expected format (coin symbol). This adds meaningful value beyond the schema's parameter name alone.

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 retrieves a daily research verdict for a specific coin symbol, listing the output components (stance, graded dimensions, key levels, link) and providing examples (BTC, ETH, SOL). It is distinct from siblings like get_kol_leaderboard (KOL-specific) or get_market_overview (market-wide), making the purpose 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 implies use for obtaining a single coin's research verdict, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide, but explicit guidelines would improve it.

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 present, but description discloses read-only nature, free access, and return format. Lacks details on rate limits or side effects, but for a simple read-only list this is sufficient.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word adds value.

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 tool returning a list, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, return shape, and safety. No 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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by specifying return structure (coins, count, site) and the purpose of discovering accepted symbols.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists every coin symbol covered by CoinVerdict with a daily research verdict, specifying scope (100 major assets). Distinguishes from siblings which provide specific verdicts or track records.

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?

Explicitly tells agents to use this to discover accepted symbols for get_verdict and get_track_record, implying when to use it. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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