dappgrade — onchain app health index

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

No annotations provided, and the description only adds 'Free,' which is ambiguous and does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, rate limits, output format). The description fails to compensate for missing 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?

16 words, highly concise, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted elements.

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

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

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key aspects. It could mention output format but is sufficient for a simple informational tool.

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

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

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds no param info but is not required to. Baseline for 0 parameters is 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 clearly states the tool explains the scoring methodology, specifying tiers, checks, coverage, and verdict model. It distinguishes from siblings like get_score (which likely returns scores) and get_universe.

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 understanding the methodology, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_score or get_universe, nor provides exclusions.

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 description carries full burden. Discloses payment requirement for indexed addresses (0.01 USDC via x402 on Base) and warns that `unknown` is not to be inferred as safe. Does not explicitly state read-only nature, but sufficiently covers key behavioral traits.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output description. Second sentence adds crucial clarification and payment note. No 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?

Without output schema, description adequately explains return format (verdict with sub-scores) and payment condition. Could mention that both parameters are required, but implied. Good overall.

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% (both parameters described). Description mentions payment for 'indexed addresses' but doesn't add significant meaning beyond schema for the two parameters. 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?

Describes a specific verb+resource: 'Pre-transaction health/safety verdict for an onchain app, by contract address.' Clearly differentiates from siblings (get_methodology, get_universe) which are about methodology info and universe listing.

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?

Implied usage as pre-transaction safety check, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Clarifies that `unknown` is a real answer, but lacks comparison to siblings or conditions for using other tools.

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 description carries full burden. It indicates a 'free discovery manifest' suggesting read-only, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with key information. However, jargon like 'dappgrade' and 'free discovery manifest' may reduce clarity for some agents.

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?

No output schema, so description should provide more on return format or use cases. Only lists what it shows but not how results are structured or what to expect.

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 has 100% coverage with basic descriptions, but the tool description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and identifies resource 'dApps dappgrade covers', clearly differentiating from siblings like get_methodology and get_score.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for discovery, but fails to differentiate from siblings or provide context on 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.