Riptide — public paper risk record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds limited extra context by specifying the source ('independent daily paper job') and the 'committed' nature, but it does not reveal other behavioral aspects such as data freshness, error behavior, or return format. 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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose and source without padding, earning its place efficiently.

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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema) and the annotations cover safety, so a short description suffices. The description adequately identifies what is returned and its origin. It could be slightly more complete if it defined what 'allocation' contains or the exact nature of the 'independent daily paper job,' but these are likely obvious within the tool's 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema places no burden on the description. The description provides the essential meaning of what the tool returns without needing to explain parameter behavior. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.

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 resource ('allocation') and specifies it is the latest one committed by a particular job, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other resources (e.g., crypto_record, risk_evidence). However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action like 'retrieves' or 'returns', so it stops short of a fully imperative purpose statement.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description implies it serves as a source for the latest allocation, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or recommend alternatives for other allocation-related 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds a bit of context about the content (toy crypto strategy paper record, honesty boundary) but is too vague to disclose actual behavior or return semantics. There is no contradiction with the 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 short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is a fragment that may confuse rather than inform. It lacks a clear subject-verb structure and reads like an incomplete note. While it fits in a concise format, the structural clarity is poor.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information. It does not adequately explain what the tool does, what the 'honesty boundary' refers to, or how this tool differs from riptide_paper_record. The tool is too underspecified for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty with 100% coverage, and there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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

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

The description is a cryptic fragment lacking a clear verb or action. It doesn't state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, list, separate), and it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling riptide_paper_record. The phrase 'Separate toy crypto strategy paper record and honesty boundary' is vague and appears to restate the title without clarifying function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or mention of alternatives like riptide_paper_record. The description provides no context for selection decisions and fails to tell the agent how this tool relates to its siblings.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds context about the resource being public methodology and canonical links, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the content is versioned or how it is returned. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 phrase: 'Public methodology, safety boundaries, and canonical links.' It is front-loaded with the most important information, contains no filler, and every word adds value. Minimal but effective.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema) and the annotations providing safety context, the description is adequately complete. It tells the agent what the resource covers. It could be slightly richer by stating that it returns this information, but the name and description together make the purpose clear enough for this low-complexity tool.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage by default. The baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It appropriately focuses on the tool's output rather than inputs.

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's content—public methodology, safety boundaries, and canonical links—but lacks a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'provide.' It conveys what the tool contains without a clear action, making the purpose somewhat vague and undifferentiated from sibling tools beyond the name.

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 accessing methodology and safety information, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tools clearly cover other domains, so usage is inferred by the tool's name, yet no direct exclusions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds a bit of context about the content included (health, allocation, records, links) but does not elaborate on behavior such as response format or scope limitations.

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 short, but it is a sentence fragment lacking a verb. While efficient, it is not well-structured and could benefit from an explicit statement of the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description is underspecified. It does not define what 'both paper records' means, what links refer to, or how this overview relates to sibling tools. Even with no parameters, a clearer description is needed to fully understand the tool's scope.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter details.

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 lists content areas ('Riptide health, latest allocation, both paper records, and links') but lacks an explicit verb or clear action like 'retrieve' or 'provide.' It implies an overview but does not distinctly differentiate from sibling tools that target specific areas.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context cues, leaving the agent without direction on 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'verified' qualifier and metric list, but does not detail output format or any behavioral caveats. 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, front-loaded phrase with no filler. It is compact but terse to the point of being a sentence fragment, which slightly reduces clarity compared to a full sentence.

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 parameters, the description must convey what the agent will receive. It lists key metrics but does not clarify whether they are current values or time series, leaving some ambiguity about the returned structure.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate; the description neither adds nor conflicts with parameter information.

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 lists specific metrics (equity, return, drawdown, recent curve) and the 'paper' qualifier distinguishes it from crypto_record and other siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'provides' or 'returns', making the intended action inferable rather than directly stated.

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. The description only states what the tool contains, with no context on scenarios, exclusions, or comparison to siblings like riptide_allocation or riptide_risk_evidence.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the output is an aggregate and explicitly excludes raw breach text, which helps set expectations about the kind of data returned.

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 uses every word effectively. It is front-loaded with the key noun phrase and immediately clarifies a common confusion ('without raw breach text'). 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 parameterless, read-only aggregate tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable expectation of what is returned ('defensive coverage aggregate') and what is omitted (raw breach text). While it could elaborate on what 'defensive coverage' entails or the response format, the description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly given its simplicity.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input fields.

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 names the resource ('defensive coverage aggregate') and specifies scope ('latest', 'without raw breach text'). It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but it clearly indicates the tool provides a particular summary view, distinguishing it from siblings that likely provide raw records, methodology, or overview.

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 phrase 'without raw breach text' implies this tool is not for retrieving raw breach text, suggesting a consumer of aggregates would use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention sibling tools. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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