curvecall

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the $0.02 USDC cost and data source (GeckoTerminal), which is useful, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, required authorization, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely only reads data.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a useful disclaimer and cost note. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the amount of context it provides.

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, the description does not need to detail return format. It explains what types of signals are provided, which is helpful. However, it does not clarify payment mechanics (e.g., whether payment is auto-deducted or must be explicitly provided) or any prerequisites (e.g., token must be on a supported chain). This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to 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%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It lists supported chains (base, bsc, robinhood, arc) and refers to 'a token,' implying the address parameter. It alludes to payment through the cost mention, but does not explicitly map parameters to their roles or formats. This adds some value beyond an empty schema but is not comprehensive.

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 bundle/sniper signals for a token, detailing what it reports (who bought in early blocks, early supply share, funding sources). It is specific about the resource (token) and the verb ('bundle/sniper signals'), and distinguishes itself from other tools by focusing on launch-window buying behavior.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need bundle/sniper signals for a token. There is no explicit comparison to siblings like contract_check or deployer_history, nor any guidance on when not to use it. The disclaimer 'Signals, not advice' hints at appropriate context but lacks explicit selection 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the checks performed and a cost of $0.01 USDC, but does not explain whether payment is required or optional (given the default null), how errors are handled, or any side effects. The cost disclosure is helpful but incomplete.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key details (chains, checks, cost). It is efficient with no fluff, though it could have used a second sentence to clarify payment semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not explain the payment parameter, lacks explicit usage guidance, and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations. For a tool with three parameters and zero schema coverage, more context is needed for an agent to call it correctly.

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 must compensate. It lists allowed chains, giving some meaning to the chain parameter, but it does not explain the address parameter (though obvious) or the payment parameter. The cost mention hints at payment but does not clarify whether it is mandatory or optional. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters.

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 an on-chain contract check, enumerates the supported EVM chains, and lists specific checks (ownership renounced, LP burn share, ERC-20 metadata, red flags). This is specific and distinguishes it from generic token 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 the tool is for contract checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like precheck or token_risk. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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. It discloses the data source, the chains covered, the time window, the outcome categories, and the cost ($0.01 USDC). It does not disclose rate limits, whether the payment is required or optional, or what happens if the address has no history. The payment mention is useful but incomplete because the schema has a nullable payment parameter with default null.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key facts (chains, date, outcome types, cost). It is slightly long but every clause adds information. The structure could be improved by separating the cost and data-source note, but it is not 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description covers the main query intent, data source, and cost. However, it lacks guidance on the payment parameter (required vs optional, how it is used), and it does not mention edge cases like unknown addresses or unsupported chains. For a paid data-lookup tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 explains the meaning of 'address' (the deployer) and 'chain' implicitly by naming the supported chains, but it does not explain the 'payment' parameter at all, nor does it specify expected formats (e.g., checksummed address, chain name vs chain ID). The description adds context about the data but leaves parameter-level semantics largely to inference.

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 verb ('Answers has this deployer rugged before?') and a specific resource (deployer launch history from CurveCall's hourly launch-outcome index). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like token_risk or wallet_snapshot by focusing on deployer-level history and outcome flags. The scope (chains, since date, outcome categories) is explicit.

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 it: when you need to know a deployer's past launch outcomes and rug rate. It names the data source and the question it answers, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related queries (e.g., token_risk for a specific token's risk), so it falls just 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, the description carries the full burden, and it does provide meaningful behavioral context: it is a pre-trade/simulation tool (not an execution tool), it costs $0.01 USDC, and it returns quote, slippage, and a rug-risk verdict. It does not fully explain payment mechanics or side effects, but 'pre-trade' and 'simulation' make the non-executing nature reasonably clear.

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, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and every sentence is relevant. The only mildly extraneous line is the marketing claim 'No other x402 service sells trade simulation', but it still helps differentiate the tool from siblings.

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 an output schema being present, the description leaves important gaps for a paid, parameterized tool: it does not explain what amount_in should be, what fee_bps means, how payment works, or how the $0.01 USDC cost is applied. An agent would likely struggle to know whether to supply amount_in or how payment is handled.

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 for the six parameters, but it does not explain chain, address, side, fee_bps, amount_in, or payment. It only offers broad context like 'what your buy will do' and 'slippage', which provides minimal guidance for correctly filling in the parameters.

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 is a pre-trade bundle combining snapshot, risk screening, and curve trade simulation into one call, and explicitly says what it returns: quote, slippage, and rug-risk verdict. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling services by claiming it is the only x402 service selling trade simulation.

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 primary use case ('pre-trade bundle') and emphasizes the simulation capability, which suggests when to choose it over individual sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like quote_buy, quote_sell, token_risk, or token_snapshot for narrower needs.

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 adds useful context about the pricing model (constant product, virtual reserves) and a fixed price hint, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only quote that does not execute a trade, nor does it mention any edge cases, fees, or rate-limit 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 short and front-loaded, but the final fragment '$0.001 USDC' is ambiguous and unexplained, and the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential guidance. It is concise but not sufficiently structured or informative.

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 an output schema exists, the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations. The description fails to cover parameter meanings, usage routing, or behavioral caveats, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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, but it does not explain any of the five parameters. Terms like 'virtual reserves' loosely relate to quote_reserves and token_reserves, but amount_in, fee_bps, and payment are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 bonding-curve BUY quote using constant product and virtual reserves, and the BUY keyword distinguishes it from the sibling quote_sell. However, it does not explicitly state what the quote returns (e.g., amount out, price impact), leaving a small gap in purpose specificity.

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?

Usage is implied by the wording 'BUY quote' and the presence of quote_sell among siblings, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions such as 'use only for buy-side quotes'. No when-not-to-use advice 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It adds some useful behavioral context by specifying the pricing model (constant product, virtual reserves) and the quote currency, but it does not state that this is a non-executing quote, nor does it mention fee handling, reverts, 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 very concise and front-loaded, with no filler. Both phrases earn their place. It sacrifices detail, but conciseness itself is strong and the core purpose appears first.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, this description is incomplete. An agent would not know what amount_in refers to, what fee_bps defaults imply, whether payment is relevant, or how the reserve parameters should be populated.

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 does not explain quote_reserves, token_reserves, amount_in, fee_bps, or payment. The phrase 'constant product, virtual reserves' hints at the formula, but it does not define the roles or units of any parameter.

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 a specific action: a bonding-curve SELL quote, using a constant-product formula with virtual reserves. It also names the quote currency (USDC) and the SELL side, distinguishing it from the sibling quote_buy tool.

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 word 'SELL' implies this is for sell-side quotes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus quote_buy, precheck, or other siblings. It gives the agent a strong hint but leaves situational routing to inference.

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 and does add useful context: it searches across chains and costs $0.005 USDC. It does not explain whether the payment parameter must be set, how costs are deducted, or any other operational behavior, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The pricing sentence is compact and earns its place by adding a critical cost detail.

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 search tool with an output schema and only one required parameter, the description covers the core search capability and cost. It falls short on payment mechanics and parameter details, and it does not position the tool against its siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to call 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that q accepts a name, symbol, or contract address, implies chain is a cross-chain filter, and hints at payment via the $0.005 USDC line. It does not clarify the exact format of chain values, the behavior of limit, or how payment is specified.

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 ('Search') and resource ('tokens'), and clarifies the search keys (name, symbol, contract address) and scope (across chains). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like token_snapshot or contract_check.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to find tokens by name, symbol, or contract address across chains. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as token_snapshot for detailed token data.

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 disclosure. It does disclose useful traits: the tool is heuristic, returns a 0-100 score, provides explainable flags, and costs $0.01 USDC. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether payment is mandatory or optional, or how failures are surfaced.

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 terse and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by the cost detail. No word is wasted. It could be slightly more informative without harming concision, but as written it is appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not needed. However, with zero parameter coverage and no annotations, the description leaves critical invocation details—chain/address semantics and payment handling—unexplained. It is too minimal for an agent to confidently use without external examples.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It does not describe what 'chain' and 'address' should contain, nor how the 'payment' parameter should be provided beyond a currency hint. The agent is left to infer semantics from parameter names 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 identifies a specific action and resource: a 'Heuristic 0-100 token risk screen with explainable flags'. It conveys the tool's purpose and output format. However, it does not differentiate it from the sibling 'precheck', which could plausibly overlap as a preliminary screening tool.

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 like precheck, quote_buy, quote_sell, or token_snapshot. The only contextual hint is the $0.01 USDC cost, which implies a paid check but does not explain preconditions or ordering.

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 behavioral burden. It does add useful context by disclosing a $0.005 USDC cost and noting the data is normalized. However, it does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, explain how payment is handled, or mention any failure/rate-limit 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 one focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key return fields, then adds the cost. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant 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 tool has an output schema, which helps, but the description still omits essential call context for a paid tool: accepted chain/address formats, payment parameter semantics, and when to prefer this tool over siblings. The $0.005 USDC cost is mentioned but not operationalized.

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, but it does not explain chain, address, or the payment parameter. The '$0.005 USDC' hint relates to payment but leaves unclear what value the payment parameter should take and whether it is needed given its null default. No input parameter semantics are meaningfully clarified.

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 tool returns a normalized token market snapshot and enumerates the key fields: price, liquidity, FDV, volume, age. It clearly identifies the resource (token market data) and the intent, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the token_risk 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus token_risk, precheck, quote_buy, or quote_sell. It does not state prerequisites, context, or exclusion conditions. The context is only implied by the word 'snapshot'.

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 usefully adds the cost ($0.005 USDC), the EVM chain scope, and the specific data fields returned, which helps set expectations. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether payment is required before execution, or any side effects, though 'snapshot' strongly implies a non-mutating read.

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 packs the core purpose, key outputs, and cost with no filler. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place, making it easy to scan.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks essential operational context: no usage guidance, no parameter value constraints, no mention of how payment interacts with the cost, and no explanation of the 'fresh-wallet flag' semantics. An agent would likely need to probe the schema or make guesses about chain and payment values.

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 barely helps disambiguate the parameters. It mentions EVM chains and address implicitly, but does not explain valid chain values, address format, or the role of the optional 'payment' parameter despite mentioning a cost. The agent cannot determine how to populate 'payment' or what chain strings are accepted.

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 (on-chain wallet) and the key outputs (contract/EOA type, tx count, native balance, fresh-wallet flag), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_snapshot and contract_check. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', relying on 'snapshot' to convey the 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as token_snapshot or contract_check. The description implies a wallet-focused use case but provides no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate 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.