What Hermes Hands would buy this tick. Named first holds first, then sits. Size is yours. Does not sell. Does not sign. POST holdings to skip names you already have.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| avoid | No | Addresses scan already marked avoid. | |
| holdings | No | What this wallet already holds. Address only is enough. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds meaningful disclosure: it will not sell, will not sign, and treats the first named item as the top holding ('holds first, then sits'). It does not explain whether the call is read-only, what side effects 'POST holdings' implies, or what 'sits' means, leaving some behavioral 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 brief and front-loaded, with every sentence adding a non-redundant behavioral constraint or usage hint. Some terseness crosses into jargon ('sits', 'Hermes Hands'), but there is no wasted text.
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 two-optional-parameter signal tool, the combination of schema and description covers the main invocation path: call with no arguments, optionally provide avoid/holdings, and treat the output as ranked buy candidates. It is still incomplete about the return shape and the precise meaning of 'first holds first, then sits', so an agent may need to infer details.
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; on top of that, the description explains why holdings matters ('skip names you already have'), which the schema does not say. The 'avoid' parameter is not mentioned in prose, but its schema entry is already self-explanatory.
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 opening phrase 'What Hermes Hands would buy this tick' clearly communicates the tool's core purpose as a buy-signal recommender, and 'Does not sell. Does not sign.' distinguishes it from execution tools. However, it relies on a question-phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'list' or 'recommend', and 'Hermes Hands' / 'sits' are unexplained, so it is clear but not maximally specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives actionable guidance for one input ('POST holdings to skip names you already have') and implies position size is the caller's responsibility. It does not name sibling tools or state conditions for choosing this over talon_alpha/talon_scan, so the when-to-use guidance is context-only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.