xDEO — Earnings Oracle

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 discloses the cost ('0.75 USDC via x402') and the non-advice disclaimer, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not explain what happens if the payment fails, whether the action is idempotent, or any rate limits. The 'x402' mechanism is mentioned but not explained, assuming domain knowledge.

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 four sentences that front-load the purpose and structured output components. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second lists what it combines, the third enumerates output sections, and the fourth states cost and disclaimer. No waste.

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 moderate complexity (synthesizes data from multiple sources) with no output schema. The description lists output components (summary, bull/bear case, etc.) but does not specify the format, structure, or how to interpret them. It also lacks error handling details. For a payment-gated tool, payment failure handling is omitted. Complete enough for basic use but leaves 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool's description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides: 'id' is estimate ID, 'payment_token' is base64 x402 payload. The description rephrases 'estimate ID' for id but adds no new semantics. Given high coverage, baseline 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 produces an AI-synthesized investment thesis for one estimate, combining analyst thesis, historical accuracy, and SEC filing result. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_estimate (which likely just displays raw data) and submit_estimate (which likely submits a thesis). The verb 'generates' and resource 'structured analysis' are specific.

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 a cost of 0.75 USDC and notes it's not investment advice, which implies it should be used when a synthesized analysis is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like leaderboard or ticker_consensus, nor does it provide conditions where it should not be used. The usage context is implied but not fully 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?

No annotations provided, so the description must solely disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, safe, or what side effects (if any) occur. 'Free' is ambiguous and insufficient for an agent to determine all behavioral implications.

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?

Extremely concise, but at the expense of clarity. 'Free' adds minimal value and could be omitted or integrated. Structure is front-loaded but lacks substantive sentences.

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 simple input and no output schema, the description should still convey basic expectations like whether the tool is read-only, what the return format is, and example usage. It fails to do so, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

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

The only parameter 'limit' is not explained in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent gets no help understanding how 'limit' affects the result (e.g., maximum number of entries).

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 it is a 'global analyst reputation leaderboard,' implying a read operation to retrieve rankings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' and does not differentiate from sibling tools that may also involve reputation data.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Free' hints at no cost but does not clarify usage context 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?

No annotations provided, but description discloses cost (0.01 USDC via x402) which is critical behavior. Lacks explicit read-only claim, but inferences safe.

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?

Single sentence with no waste, front-loaded with purpose and cost. 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?

Missing return format, pagination, or rate limits. With no output schema, description should clarify what 'All estimates' entails. Cost info helps, but incomplete for full use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 50%, and description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema. The schema’s ticker lacks description; payment_token described as base64 payload. Description doesn't compensate.

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 lists all estimates for a ticker, distinguishing it from siblings like read_estimate (single) and submit_estimate. The name aligns with 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 description implies use when wanting all estimates for a ticker and includes cost context. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but sibling tools provide differentiation.

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 should disclose read-only nature and any side effects. Only 'List all tracked tickers' is given, which implies read-only but does not explicitly state behavior or 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?

Two short sentences contain all essential information with no wasted words. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 fails to mention what information is returned for each ticker (e.g., symbol, name). With no output schema, this is a significant gap in completeness.

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 the description does not need to explain them. Baseline score of 4 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 verb 'list' and resource 'tracked tickers'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools which are about estimates, theses, etc.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The word 'Free' hints at cost but does not clarify when to use this tool over others.

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 should fully disclose behavior. It hints at a payment mechanism but does not state if the tool is read-only, idempotent, or what happens on invalid input. The payment aspect is ambiguous.

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 short but the second sentence 'Analyst-priced x402 payment' is cryptic and minimally informative. It could be either clarified or removed to improve 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values and behavior. It does not explain what 'Full thesis' entails or how the payment token is used, leaving 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the two parameters. 'id' and 'payment_token' are not defined, and 'payment_token' especially needs clarification as it relates to the 'Analyst-priced' hint.

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 'Full thesis for one estimate', indicating a read operation on a single estimate, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'ai_thesis' or 'ticker_consensus', which might also involve thesis retrieval.

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 on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Analyst-priced x402 payment' suggests a payment requirement but is cryptic and does not clarify usage context.

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 only mentions 'Free; reputation is the stake,' which hints at behavioral traits but does not disclose specifics like what 'reputation' entails, what happens after submission, or any limits.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral note.

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

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is highly incomplete. It lacks return-value information, error handling, or constraints (e.g., uniqueness of ticker+period+analyst), leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is very low (11%). The description adds no parameter explanations, leaving many required and optional fields (e.g., 'thesis', 'predicted', 'confidence', 'price_usdc') without additional meaning beyond their names and types.

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 ('Submit') and the resource ('earnings estimate (opinion)'). It adds context about being free and reputation-based. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_estimate' or 'list_estimates', which have distinct purposes.

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, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description lacks explicit context about appropriate 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only vaguely mentions 'free reputation-weighted consensus' and 'ticker details.' It does not explain data freshness, permissions, side effects, or output structure.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that separates two components with '+', making it efficient and easy to parse. It could add a bit more context without losing 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks sufficient detail about the return format or what constitutes 'ticker details.' It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the ticker parameter beyond the schema's type definition. It does not clarify what a ticker is or any constraints.

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 ticker details and a reputation-weighted consensus estimate, distinguishing it from siblings like read_estimate or list_estimates. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve') and uses a noun-phrase structure.

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 vs. alternatives (e.g., read_estimate for a single estimate, list_estimates for multiple). The agent is left to infer usage from naming, which is insufficient.

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 behavioral details, but it only states it's a scoreboard and free. No mention of read-only nature, required permissions, or what data is affected.

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 short phrases), but this comes at the cost of essential information. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices usefulness for brevity.

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

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

Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to describe the output format, what the scoreboard contains, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 0%, so the description should explain the parameter. It implies filingId refers to a filing identifier but doesn't specify format, source, or example, adding minimal 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 'Post-earnings scoreboard for a filing' indicates the tool provides a scoreboard related to earnings after a filing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_estimates or leaderboard. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'retrieve') and could be clearer.

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 like ai_thesis or ticker_consensus. The mention of 'Free' hints at no cost but does not help with selection context.

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