AIXBT

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about returning sources and activity details, which is valuable beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations. However, it could further clarify pagination behavior or depth of 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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 schema covers both parameters and output schema is present (reducing need to explain return values), the description is fairly complete. It states the tool retrieves one development with sources and context. Slight room for improvement: noting that the output schema provides the structure, but overall good.

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 schema already documents both parameters (id and activity). The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'get one development with its sources and context.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles param 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 states it retrieves a single development along with its sources and context. This is a specific verb (get) applied to a distinct resource (intel/development), and it differentiates from siblings like get_project or get_topic which retrieve different entities.

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 needing a development's full details including sources and context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling list suggests other tools for different entity types, providing implicit 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds behavioral detail about returning 'recent Intel and related Projects', which is helpful beyond the annotations. No contradictions with 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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes key qualifiers. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns. The mention of 'recent Intel and related Projects' adds value without needing to duplicate the output schema.

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 100% with a clear description of idOrSlug. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 retrieves a single project along with recent intel and related projects, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists projects) or get_intel (which gets only intel). However, it could be more precise about the scope of 'recent' and what 'related Projects' entails.

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 you need a single project with associated intel and related projects, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_projects or get_project_series. No guidance on exclusions or preconditions is provided.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'recent' implying a time constraint but does not elaborate on bounds, pagination, or output behavior. With annotations present, the description is adequate but adds little beyond the abstract term 'attention history.'

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 conveys the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy. Every part 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered), 4 parameters with optional time window, and an enum, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the from/to filtering capability or default behavior. 'Recent' is vague, leaving the agent to infer that from/to control the window.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters (e.g., default time windows or the meaning of 'trend' vs 'rank'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the burden.

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 'recent attention history for a Project,' using a specific verb and resource. It implies time-series data, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project (static details) and get_topic_series (topic attention). However, it could more explicitly define 'attention history' or contrast with siblings.

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. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_project for static info, get_topic_series for topics'). The agent receives no help in tool selection.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral info beyond the schema: it mentions 'published' status and inclusion of 'sources,' but does not disclose details like pagination, caching behavior, or what happens if the report doesn't exist or is unpublished. With annotations covering the core safety traits, the description adds some value but lacks deeper behavioral context (e.g., does it fail on unpublished? Rate 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 concise at one sentence (7 words), focusing on the core action and result. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and the resource. However, given the tool's complexity (simple input, no annotations that contradict) the description could afford to add more value without sacrificing conciseness—e.g., a note about output format or typical usage context. Still, it avoids 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?

With only one parameter (100% schema coverage), no nested objects, and a clear output schema (indicated as present), the tool is relatively simple. The description covers the basic purpose (get report + sources) but omits any context about what 'published' means, whether the report includes metadata, or how the output schema relates to 'sources.' For a low-complexity tool, it is minimally complete, but could be more helpful by explaining what kind of report this is (e.g., AIXBT research?) and what 'sources' entails.

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% (the only parameter 'id' has a description 'Report ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any new information about the parameter beyond the schema: it doesn't clarify what format the ID uses (UUID? URL? numeric?) or where to find it (from a list tool?). The description remains silent on parameter details, offering no extra meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Report ID.'

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 'Get' and the resource 'a published AIXBT report with its sources.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings that fetch intel, projects, or topics by specifying this is for a 'report' and that it includes 'sources.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_topic' or 'get_intel' in terms of scope or content, missing a chance to rule out confusion.

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 needing a published report along with its sources, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_topic' or 'get_intel' (e.g., for raw data vs. synthesized report). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and schema.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation with bounded context. The description adds 'with its recent context,' which hints at temporal scoping, but does not elaborate on the behavior (e.g., how 'recent' is defined, or whether the topic is updated). No contradiction with 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and clear purpose, though it could be slightly more specific without bloat.

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 simplicity (single parameter, clear schema, annotations for safety, and an output schema present), the description is adequate. It explains the core function and the 'recent context' aspect. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed.

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% (the only parameter topicId has a pattern and description referencing list_topics). The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states 'Get one current Topic with its recent context.' This clearly identifies the verb (Get), the resource (Topic), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_report or list_topics. The mention of 'recent context' adds specificity, but the scope is not fully elaborated (e.g., what constitutes '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 implies that this tool is for retrieving a single topic, contrasting with list_topics (which likely returns many). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_topic_series or get_intel, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., topicId from list_topics is already in the schema).

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 already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe for reading. The description adds the behavioral context that this retrieves 'history' (time-series data), which is beyond what the annotations specify. There is no contradiction with 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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It front-loads the key action and subject. It could potentially add a bit more context (e.g., what 'recent' means) without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema (not shown but present), the description need not detail return values. However, it provides no guidance on time window handling or the interpretation of 'recent', nor does it explain the two measure options. The description is adequate for a tool with strong schema coverage and annotations, but leaves the agent guessing on default behavior (e.g., what happens if 'from' or 'to' is omitted?)

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters with descriptions and constraints. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value but confirms the overall intent ('recent attention history'). The measure enum is well-described, and date/time parameters are clearly specified. Baseline 3 plus minor extra context justifies 4.

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 'Get recent attention history for a Topic' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (attention history for a topic). However, it uses the vague term 'recent' which is not precisely defined, and among siblings like 'get_topic' (which likely returns current state) and 'get_project_series', this does not strongly distinguish itself beyond the resource type.

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 retrieving time-series data ('recent attention history'), suggesting it is for historical queries rather than current state. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_topic' (current state), 'get_intel' (different resource), or 'get_report'. No exclusion criteria or context signals 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that the values are 'current supported,' implying dynamic or time-sensitive data, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or what 'current' 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 complexity (0 parameters, output schema exists) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'filter values' are, how they are used, or how this tool fits into a workflow. The output schema may provide structure, but the description lacks guidance for an 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline of 3 is appropriate as it adds no additional semantic 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 'Get current supported filter values' clearly states the tool retrieves filter vocabulary, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_intel' or 'get_project' that retrieve different data types, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as using this tool to populate filter options before querying other tools, or when not to use 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds specificity that it lists 'audience communities contributing to crypto attention', which clarifies the scope beyond the annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 of 7 words, which is concise and to the point. It front-loads the verb and resource. However, its brevity means it lacks detail that could add value, but it is not verbose.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no required params, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers the return structure, and annotations cover safety. However, the description could explain what 'audience clusters' are or how the 'universe' parameter affects results. For a simple tool, it is sufficient but not thorough.

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 schema already documents the 'universe' parameter with enum values and a description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior (default: crypto) which is not in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'audience clusters', but qualifies it with 'contributing to crypto attention', which narrows the scope and distinguishes it vaguely from siblings. However, it does not fully clarify what 'clusters' are in this context, and the sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_topics' suggest overlapping listing functionality. The description is clear but lacks distinctiveness from other list 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?

The description implies this tool is for retrieving audience clusters related to crypto attention, and the input schema hints at filtering by 'universe' (crypto or tradfi). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_intel' or 'list_projects'. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Search recent crypto developments'. It fails to mention pagination (cursor/limit), default sorting, or that results are a filtered list. For a search tool with 23 parameters, the description should disclose key behavioral traits like pagination and default ordering.

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 of 8 words. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. However, given the tool's complexity (23 parameters), it is arguably too sparse and could be expanded slightly to include core features without losing conciseness. Still, it earns a 4 for being efficient and without 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?

For a tool with 23 parameters, a good description should provide an overview of the main filtering dimensions (e.g., text, project, date, sentiment, asset type) and pagination behavior. The current description is too vague: 'text and filters' does not convey the rich filter set or the fact that results are paginated via cursor. Even with a detailed schema, the description should set user expectations about output format and common workflows.

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?

With schema description coverage at 96%, the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only offers the generic phrase 'using text and filters' which maps vaguely to 'search' and 'filters'. It does not highlight how to use key parameters like cursor for pagination, date ranges, or lineage with categories. The description fails to enhance understanding 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'crypto developments' with a qualifier 'recent'. The title 'Search crypto intel' reinforces this. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_intel' (which likely retrieves a single item) by focusing on search/list behavior. However, it could be more precise about the return type (a list of intel items) and what 'recent' means.

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 'get_intel' (single item retrieval) or other list tools. The description does not mention exclusions or context where this tool is preferred. An agent must infer usage from the name and siblings 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe reads. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond stating it uses filters; but with 14 parameters and no mention of pagination, rate limits, or result completeness, the description does not significantly augment the annotation-provided safety 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 short and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, but the phrase 'using supported filters' is redundant given the schema already enumerates filter parameters. A slight edge toward clarity could exist.

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 14 parameters with 100% schema coverage, a rich output schema, and annotations clearly stating it's read-only and non-destructive, the description captures the core intent. It is adequate for contextual completeness without needing to detail every filter.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating that filters are supported. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the burden fully.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists tracked crypto projects using filters. The verb 'Find' and resource 'tracked crypto Projects' are specific, but the phrase 'using supported filters' is vague and does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_project', which retrieves a single project by ID.

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 filtering projects but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project' for a single project or other list tools. Without exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions, the agent must infer context from sibling names.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe to call. The description adds the time dimension ('current') and the domain ('crypto'), but does not disclose if results are paginated, cached, or if there's any rate limiting. Since annotations cover the key safety info, the description gets a 3 for adding some context without contradictions.

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 just 6 words, with no wasted sentences. It quickly states the tool's action and domain. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'Topic landscape' entails without sacrificing conciseness (e.g., 'List currently trending crypto topics').

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 only 2 parameters (0 required), a clear output schema, and read-only annotations, the tool is simple and the description is mostly adequate. The output schema likely handles return values, so no need to describe them. However, the description's vagueness about what 'Topic landscape' means leaves some ambiguity about the scope of results, especially given sibling tools like list_intel that could overlap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema with names, types, descriptions, and one enum. The description mentions 'current' but does not add any detail about the 'ranking' or 'projectId' parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 'List the current crypto Topic landscape' clearly identifies the tool's verb (List) and resource (Topic landscape), but it uses the vague phrase 'Topic landscape' which could mean different things. The title says 'trending topics', but the description does not reinforce that the list is specifically trending. Compared to siblings like list_intel and list_projects, this description does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 that the tool is used to see current crypto topics, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_intel or get_topic. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual alternatives are mentioned. The tool is non-destructive with no required params, so usage seems simple but lacks explicit when-to-use 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it checks 'access and usage limits,' which details what information the tool returns. No contradictions with 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is meaningful, with 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 simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It might lack nuance about what 'usage limits' entails, but the output schema likely handles that. Given the context signals (no params, has output schema), the description is sufficiently 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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The rule states baseline 4 for zero parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly omits any parameter discussion.

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 specific language: 'Check the current credential's access and usage limits.' It clearly states what the tool does (check) and what resource it operates on (current credential's access and usage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_intel or list_projects, which retrieve data about other entities.

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 verifying one's own permissions or rate limits, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or what other tools might serve a similar purpose, leaving the agent to infer context.

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