CryptoData API

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the cost ($0.05) but omits crucial details like rate limits, required permissions (api_key is required but not explained), output format, and what happens on failure.

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 (two sentences), which is concise but sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary details, making it minimally adequate.

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 security audit tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return format, interpretation of results, or any limitations (e.g., only works on verified contracts), leaving significant gaps.

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 adds no explanation for parameters (chain, address, api_key). The description does not clarify allowed values, formats, or where to obtain the api_key, leaving the agent to guess.

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 performs a 'deep contract audit' listing specific risk factors (liquidity, holder risk, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_solana_token. However, it lacks precision on what the output contains.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives or prerequisites. Sibling tools like analyze_solana_token suggest a platform difference, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance 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 carries the full burden. It discloses the cost and output fields, but does not mention safety (read-only), authentication needs, or error behavior. Partial transparency.

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 key information. Every word adds value, including the cost note. No unnecessary 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?

Without an output schema, the description partially covers expected outputs but omits response format, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., valid api_key). Adequate but not complete for a paid 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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The mint parameter already has a schema description ('SPL token mint address'), and api_key has none. The description does not elaborate on parameters or their usage. Schema coverage is 50%, and description fails to compensate.

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 deep analysis of Solana tokens, listing specific attributes (mint authority, freeze authority, supply, decimals, metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like get_coin or get_token_holders by being more comprehensive and Solana-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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions cost ($0.05) but lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios. Usage is implied but not guided.

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 adds cost info ($0.005) but fails to disclose other behaviors like rate limits, response format, or authorization needs.

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 concise sentences with no redundant text. Every word adds value.

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?

Minimal but covers the core purpose and cost. Lacks return value description and any schema/annotation support, making it incomplete for a parameter-only 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the 'api_key' parameter beyond its type. No format, source, or usage hints.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Check' and resource 'agent's CryptoBoss API balance'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'pay_agent' and many 'get_*' 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?

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Only implies use when needing to check balance.

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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists what the tool detects (infinite approval, spending limits, dangerous functions) but omits whether it is read-only, requires special permissions, has rate limits, or returns any structured data. This is insufficient for safe agent automation.

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 sentence and includes only necessary information (tool action and a pricing note). The pricing is somewhat extraneous but does not hinder conciseness. It is front-loaded with the core 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 tool checks token approvals, a task that typically requires understanding of the return value (e.g., risk levels, list of approved spenders). No output schema exists, and the description does not explain what the agent should expect. The pricing note is unhelpful for functional completeness.

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 adds no parameter details beyond the tool's purpose. The 'address' parameter is implied to be a token contract address but not explicitly stated, and 'api_key' is not described. The tool cannot be correctly invoked without guessing parameter formats.

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 checks token approval risks, listing specific aspects like infinite approval detection and dangerous functions. The verb 'check' and resource 'token approval risks' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_contract by focusing solely on approvals.

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 for checking approval risks but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' or comparison with sibling tools like analyze_contract or analyze_solana_token is provided, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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 full burden. It only states the action without disclosing whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Important behavioral traits are omitted.

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 (one sentence), which is concise but at the cost of missing important information. It earns its place but should include more 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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the response contains, error handling, or usage context. It is incomplete even for a minimal definition.

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 single parameter 'api_key' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description mentions 'API key' but does not explain its format, origin, or how to obtain it, adding minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 checks 'API key balance and usage', which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like check_agent_balance or check_approvals, though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 such as check_agent_balance or other tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites or 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?

The description mentions a cost ($0.02), which is a behavioral disclosure beyond parameters. However, with no annotations, it should also note read-only nature, rate limits, or other traits. The cost mention is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 short (one sentence plus cost), which is concise but omits critical details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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, no annotations, and incomplete parameter explanations, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify return format, max coins, or sorting. The agent lacks sufficient context to reliably invoke this 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions metrics but does not explain the parameters (vs, coins, api_key) beyond their defaults. The agent must infer that coins is a comma-separated list and vs is the quote currency. This is minimal added value.

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 a 'Side-by-side comparison of multiple coins' and lists specific metrics (price, market cap, volume, 24h change, ATH). This makes the purpose clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_price or get_coin that also provide similar metrics for individual coins.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what it does without context, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions deletion and cost, but lacks disclosure of side effects, irreversibility, or required permissions beyond the obvious.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence that clearly conveys the core purpose. The cost inclusion is minimal extra but not excessive.

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 annotations, the description lacks completeness. No information on error handling, idempotency, or behavior when alert does not exist.

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 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of either parameter (api_key, alert_id). The tool name implies alert_id is the ID, but no details are provided.

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 explicitly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('price alert by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_alerts' and 'set_price_alert'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context for when not to use it. Merely states the action without conditional advice.

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 exist. Description only mentions cost ($0.005), omitting important traits like required auth, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. Fails to fully disclose 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?

Two short sentences, no fluff. Purpose and cost immediately clear. Efficient.

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?

Low complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers purpose and cost but lacks details on response format or filtering, leaving ambiguity about scope (user-specific?).

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%. The api_key parameter is not described at all. No meaning added 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?

States 'List all active price alerts', clearly specifying verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_alert' and 'set_price_alert'.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., checking specific alerts). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria 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?

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions a cost of $0.03, which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose other traits like authentication requirements (api_key is required but not noted) or output format.

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?

Very short (two sentences), front-loaded with purpose. However, the second sentence '$0.03.' is cryptic and may confuse; it does not clearly earn 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?

Despite low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description misses parameter explanations, output format, and usage guidance, making it incomplete for an AI 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?

Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage). The description does not explain the 'coins' parameter (default given but purpose unclear) nor 'api_key'. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but agent needs more context.

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 clearly states the tool scans price differences between CEX and DEX markets, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_price or get_price_summary. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price or get_price_summary. The description lacks context for 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behaviors. It mentions that an api_key is required, implying authentication. However, the input schema marks api_key as optional, creating a contradiction. No other behaviors (e.g., rate limits, pagination, sort order) are disclosed.

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 with no redundant information. It immediately states the purpose and a key requirement. Every word 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 no output schema, the description should hint at return values. It does not. The tool is simple (1 optional param) so minimal context might suffice, but the missing output details and lack of comparison to similar tools leave gaps. Adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for api_key. The description adds the claim that api_key is 'required', which semantically constrains usage beyond the schema's optional flag. However, this contradicts the schema, reducing its helpfulness. It does not describe parameter values or format.

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 returns top crypto categories by market cap, indicating the verb 'get' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'trending_categories' by specifying the sorting criterion. However, the verb is implied rather than explicit, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 'get_top' or 'trending_categories'. It only mentions an api_key requirement, but does not explain context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. No usage scenarios are described.

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 exist, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions api_key requirement for social data, but doesn't describe rate limits, error handling, or what happens without api_key for other fields. Schema already notes api_key parameter, so description adds minimal transparency.

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 with clear front-loading ('Detailed coin info'). Lists specific fields concisely. No wasted words, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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, but description lists return fields. Missing details on data freshness, pagination, or structure. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for complex data like price history or social stats.

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 50% (only api_key has a description). The description adds no meaning for the 'id' parameter (no format or source) and only reiterates api_key's role. Users must infer what 'id' refers to.

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 clearly states it provides 'detailed coin info' listing specific data fields (price, ATH, supply, categories, social). This differentiates from simpler tools like get_price or get_summary, though could be more explicit about the coin identification (ID vs 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The note 'api_key required for social' is the only usage hint, but no when/when-not context 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?

No annotations present. The description only mentions a cost ($0.02) which is non-standard and not a behavioral trait. No disclosure of mutability, rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. Fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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?

Extremely short but under-specified. While brief, it omits critical information, making it ineffective. Not a model of conciseness as it sacrifices completeness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain (DeFi pools), the description is far from complete. It fails to cover what the tool returns, how to use parameters, or any edge cases.

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%. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (sort, chain, limit, api_key). For a tool with required api_key and enum sort, the description adds zero value to parameter understanding.

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 states it provides 'Liquidity pools across DEXs,' which gives a general idea but lacks specificity on what data is returned. Does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_defi_yields' or 'get_defi_tvl', leaving ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context provided about use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that warrant its use.

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. The description adds only the cost ($0.02) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, 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 extremely short but lacks essential details, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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, and the description only hints at 'chain TVL'. Given the complexity and number of sibling tools, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for the parameters 'slug' and 'api_key'. The agent cannot infer what values to pass.

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 mentions 'DeFi protocol breakdown with chain TVL', indicating it provides TVL per chain for a protocol. However, 'breakdown' is vague and does not distinguish from siblings like get_defi_tvl or get_defi_pools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling DeFi tools, this is a significant omission.

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 must bear the full burden. It mentions the cost ($0.02), which adds some behavioral transparency, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, rate limits, or data freshness. The cost info is useful 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 very short (two sentences) and contains no redundant information. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load the most critical details (e.g., parameters or output). The cost info is important but appended awkwardly.

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 3 parameters, no schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain what the output looks like, how to use the parameters, or any examples. The cost mention is the only redeeming factor.

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%, but the description provides no information about the parameters (chain, limit, api_key). This is a critical failure; the agent cannot understand how to use the parameters from the description 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 states that the tool returns protocols ranked by TVL, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_defi_pools or get_defi_protocol. However, it does not elaborate on what TVL means or the scope of protocols, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_defi_yields or get_defi_protocol). With 40+ sibling tools, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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 full burden. It mentions scope ('200+ chains') but omits critical details: whether it is read-only, authentication needs beyond api_key, rate limits, pagination, or data recency. The '$0.02' hint is ambiguous and not explained.

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 short (one sentence plus a number), which is efficient. The core information 'APY, TVL, protocols across 200+ chains' is front-loaded. However, the '$0.02' seems extraneous and could be distracting.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and siblings, the description is insufficient. It leaves out parameter details, return format, pagination, and behavioral context. A user would have to guess or experiment to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (chain, limit, minApy, api_key). It mentions APY and TVL but does not link them to parameters. No parameter meanings or usage hints are provided.

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 identifies the tool as returning DeFi yield farming data including APY, TVL, and protocols across many chains. The name 'get_defi_yields' and context from sibling tools (get_defi_pools, get_defi_tvl) help distinguish it, but no explicit verb is stated in the description, and the '$0.02' reference is unclear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative DeFi siblings (e.g., get_defi_pools for pools, get_defi_tvl for TVL). The description implies it covers yields, but lacks explicit context on selection, prerequisites, or 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the api_key requirement, but fails to indicate that the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or any other behavioral aspects. The description is insufficient.

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 concise—one short sentence with core information front-loaded. However, it could benefit from slight expansion to cover essential details like return values. Still, efficiency is high.

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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format or data structure. It does not. Also, no behavioral context beyond api_key is provided. For a 2-parameter tool, it is minimally complete but lacks depth.

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 description adds some value by indicating 'api_key required', which implies auth is needed despite the schema not marking it as required. This is useful but contradictory to the schema's 'required: []'. The other parameter 'limit' is not discussed. Schema coverage is 50%, but the description only partially compensates.

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 exchanges with volume, trust score, and country. The verb 'listings' is clear and the resource 'exchanges' is explicit. However, it does not differentiate from other get_* tools in the sibling list, though the name itself is distinctive enough.

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 only mentions 'api_key required' as a condition, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_search or get_top. No context on prerequisites or scenarios is 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only hints at a cost ($0.005) but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or side effects. The required api_key parameter is indicated in the schema but not explained in the description.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, it omits critical information, making it too sparse for effective tool selection and invocation.

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, no annotations, and two parameters with zero description, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to describe return values, behavior, or parameter meanings, leaving agents with insufficient context to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (e.g., what 'limit' controls or how to use 'api_key'). The description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving agents without guidance on parameter usage.

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 'Fear & Greed Index with history' clearly indicates the resource, and the tool name includes 'get', making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', and lacks differentiation from sibling tools, which are mostly distinct but not addressed.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_social_sentiment or get_global, nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions for use.

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. It hints at a cost ('$0.005') but does not clarify if this is a fee per call or a sample value. No mention of rate limits, authentication behavior, or data freshness. The parameter 'api_key' is not explained.

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 (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. The inclusion of '$0.005' is cryptic and reduces clarity. It could be reordered to better separate gas types from pricing info.

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 simple nature of the tool and absence of output schema/annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how to interpret the gas values, or how the api_key should be provided. The user cannot fully understand the tool's behavior.

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% (no descriptions on parameters). The description adds no meaning to 'api_key' or any other parameter. The user is left to guess the format or purpose of the key.

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 retrieving Ethereum gas fees (low, average, fast, base fee). The inclusion of '$0.005' is ambiguous but does not obscure the main purpose. Sibling 'get_gas_all' suggests this is Ethereum-specific, adding implicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_gas_all'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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, and the description only says 'Multi-chain gas tracker. $0.01.' This gives no behavioral details such as cost, rate limits, output format, 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?

Extremely short but under-specified. The description is a tagline without useful detail, not a concise summary that 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?

Despite having only one parameter, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how to use the api_key, or any behavioral traits. Completely inadequate for effective selection and invocation.

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 only parameter, 'api_key', has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning about its usage, format, or purpose.

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's a multi-chain gas tracker, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_gas' which is likely single-chain.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_gas'. The description lacks context for choosing among 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions api_key requirement but does not clarify read-only nature, rate limits, or consequences of missing key.

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 conveys purpose and key requirement efficiently. No filler 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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter, but lacks return format details and contains a contradiction about parameter requirement.

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 single optional api_key parameter. Description states 'api_key required' contradicting the schema where required is empty. This is a misleading contradiction.

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 clearly states the tool provides global market stats including total cap, volume, and BTC dominance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific coins, tokens, or indicators.

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?

Description implies usage for obtaining high-level market overview but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like get_coin or get_fear_greed. No when-not or alternative guidance 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It hints at potential cost with '$0.01' but fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements beyond api_key, or what the response looks like. The description is sparse on behavioral details.

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 short sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get Jupiter swap quote') and includes important details. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly expanded for completeness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It mentions 'best route, price impact, fees' but does not detail the structure, potential errors, or edge cases. For a tool that provides a quote, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the output.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the tool returns 'best route, price impact, fees' which correlates to the parameters but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 'Get Jupiter swap quote' with specifics on what the tool provides (best route, price impact, fees) and that it works for any Solana token pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_price or get_arbitrage by focusing on swap quoting.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions or prerequisites for use. It simply describes what the tool does without context for decision-making.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions '$0.02,' hinting at a cost per call, but does not clarify if it is read-only, whether it requires authorization beyond api_key, or any side effects. The description is mostly silent on 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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence lacks detail, and the '$0.02' is ambiguous. Every sentence should add value, but this one is insufficient.

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, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned, how to use the chain parameter, or any constraints. Given the tool's DeFi risk focus, much more context is 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 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. It does not explain the meaning or allowed values of 'chain' or 'api_key'. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it is a 'liquidation risk watch across DeFi positions,' which clearly indicates the tool provides liquidation risk data for DeFi positions. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_portfolio_health or get_defi_pools. However, the verb 'watch' is imprecise; 'get' or 'list' would be clearer.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like get_portfolio_health or get_defi_pools might overlap, but the description does not help differentiate.

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 exist; the description only adds a cost indicator ($0.05). It fails to disclose that an API key is required (only implied by the schema), whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits. The behavioral burden is largely unmet.

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 short (one sentence), which is efficient but omits critical details. It lacks structure and does not earn its place by being sufficiently informative. Truly concise descriptions pack essential information without waste; this under-serves the agent.

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, complex behavioral expectations (risk analysis output format), and limited annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the returned risk score or flags mean, or how to interpret liquidity and holder analysis results.

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 provides no explanation of the 'address' or 'api_key' parameters. The agent cannot infer what address format to use or why the API key is needed. The description adds zero value over the raw 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 states the tool provides 'rug risk analysis' with specific outputs like risk score, flags, liquidity, and holder analysis. The name includes 'meme' and 'analyze', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_meme_scan' (likely retrieval) and 'analyze_contract' (generic contract analysis).

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. It mentions a cost ($0.05) but does not explain prerequisites, input requirements, or excluded use cases. The agent is left to infer from context among many 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?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions a cost of $0.05 per call but omits details on rate limits, authentication requirements (api_key is in schema but not described), or what 'scan' entails operationally. This is insufficient for a tool with mutation potential.

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 10 words, but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

Given four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return format, pagination, or error handling, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 explain parameters. It hints at 'liq, volume, age, txns' but does not map these to schema properties (chain, limit, minLiq, api_key). The meaning of critical parameters like api_key and limit is left implicit.

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 scans new meme tokens across DEXs with metrics like liquidity, volume, age, and transactions. This distinguishes it from siblings such as get_meme_trending or get_meme_analyze.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_meme_trending, get_meme_analyze, or get_pump_fun_new, leaving the agent without context for 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?

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it returns trending tokens by volume, but omits critical details like required authentication (api_key), rate limits, cost implications of the '$0.03' mention, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 brevity here comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. The '$0.03' token is cryptic and undermines purpose. Important information is missing, making it not a model of conciseness.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover the tool's behavior, return format, or parameter semantics, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the 'api_key' requirement or the 'limit' parameter's effect. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Trending DEX tokens by volume,' which gives a general purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention that it focuses on meme tokens (as the name suggests) and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like get_trending or get_meme_scan. The '$0.03' is ambiguous and adds 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_trending or get_meme_analyze, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for use.

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?

Only mentions cost ($0.01). No disclosures about rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements. The required api_key parameter is not mentioned in description.

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?

Extremely concise (two sentences). First sentence covers purpose, second adds cost. Could be restructured to front-load key information.

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 or annotations, description should explain output format and scope. Only mentions 'across major chains' without listing chains or response 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 has one parameter (api_key) with 0% description coverage. Description adds no information about the parameter format, source, or role.

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 clearly states the tool provides network health and status across major chains, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on specific coins or prices. However, 'major chains' is vague.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_gas or get_summary. Does not specify supported chains or prerequisites.

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, and the description only mentions a cost of $0.01, which is not a standard behavioral trait. It does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects.

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 with the main function, but it omits important details about parameters and outputs, making it less informative than it could be.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, candle intervals, or provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails entirely. It mentions time durations but does not link them to the 'days' parameter, and does not explain 'coin' or 'vs' parameters at all.

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 that the tool provides OHLC chart data for durations 1d, 7d, 30d, 90d. However, it does not explicitly mention the coin and currency pair, leaving some gap in identifying the resource.

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 like get_price or get_price_summary. The description lacks any usage context or when-not-to-use advice.

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 description mentions a $0.02 cost per call, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose if the tool is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. The cost information adds value but leaves significant gaps.

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 short (two fragments and a cost note). While concise, it sacrifices essential information. It could be more structured but avoids verbosity.

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, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return format, how to interpret results, or provide examples. The tool's behavior remains largely opaque.

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 does not explain the 'api_key' or 'holdings' parameters. The meaning of 'holdings' (e.g., JSON format, list of tickers) is completely absent, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 specifies the tool assesses portfolio diversification metrics (concentration, correlation, sector exposure), which clearly indicates its purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like get_portfolio_value and get_price by focusing on health rather than value or price.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_portfolio_value, market_correlation). No prerequisites or context about required holdings format or input preparation 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?

The description mentions a cost ($0.01), which is a behavioral trait. However, no annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, auth requirements, or any side effects. The cost is noted, but other important behaviors are omitted.

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 (one sentence plus cost), which is efficient but at the expense of completeness. Every sentence serves a purpose, but additional details (e.g., output format, error cases) are missing, making it too sparse for a fully functional description.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return value, how the api_key is used, or potential errors. The description is too minimal to be considered 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (holdings described, api_key not). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not describe the api_key parameter or provide any additional context for holdings. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('calculate') and the resource ('total portfolio value in USD'), and specifies the input format ('holdings JSON'). It implies a distinct functionality from siblings like 'get_portfolio_health' or 'get_price', though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and purpose 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It states 'real-time' but does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, rate limits, data freshness, or any potential behavioral nuances. The implicit read nature is assumed but not stated.

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 concise, using a single phrase with a parenthetical about api_key. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, some may argue it is too terse, but it earns its place without extraneous 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values or format, but it does not. Given low schema coverage and limited behavioral info, the description is incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's context and effects.

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 only 33% (only api_key has a description). The tool's description adds no extra meaning to parameters; it only mentions api_key requirement. For the vs and coins parameters, the schema provides defaults but no explanation, and the description does not compensate.

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 returns real-time crypto prices for over 15,000 coins, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price_summary or get_coin. The verb 'get' and resource 'price' are well-defined.

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 mentions 'api_key required' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price_summary, get_coin, or other price-related siblings. There is no explicit context for usage decisions.

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 burden. It mentions the cost ($0.02), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors like whether it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs.

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, using only two short phrases. It front-loads the purpose and includes the cost. While concise, it could be slightly expanded for clarity, but no words are wasted.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits details about output format, parameter usage, and prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its four parameters. The description does not explain any parameter (vs, coin, days, api_key), failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 provides price statistics (high, low, average, volatility) over N days, which is specific and useful. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, and does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_price or get_ohlc, so not a perfect 5.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., get_price, get_ohlc, get_summary). The description lacks context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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 bears full burden. It states output fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (likely read-only), authentication needs (api_key required in practice but optional in schema), rate limits, or data recency. Minimal behavioral context beyond output format.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with price. No wasted words. However, under-specification reduces utility. For a simple tool, this brevity is acceptable but could be improved by adding actionable details.

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?

Output fields are listed (name, symbol, market cap, age, volume), which helps agents understand return value. But no output schema exists, and description lacks information on data format (e.g., array), pagination, or how limit parameter affects results. Adequate for simple list retrieval but incomplete for advanced usage.

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?

Input schema coverage is 50% (api_key described, limit not). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what is in the schema. For example, 'limit' lacks explanation of its effect (e.g., maximum number of tokens returned). The description does not compensate for the missing schema 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 the tool returns 'Latest tokens created on Pump.fun' with specific fields (name, symbol, market cap, age, volume). It distinguishes from siblings like get_trending or get_meme_trending by specifying 'latest' rather than trending. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_meme_scan or get_search.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies use for latest Pump.fun tokens, but does not exclude other scenarios or provide context on when not to use it. Among many sibling token tools, an agent lacks clear 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?

Only notes that api_key is required, which is already in schema. No disclosure of pagination, rate limits, or result shape. No annotations provided, so description bears full burden.

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 plus parenthetical – very concise, but lacks structure (e.g., no separate sections for parameters).

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, no return format description, no error handling notes. Agent cannot predict what the response contains.

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 50%; description does not clarify q beyond name/symbol. Contradicts schema by stating api_key required (schema marks it optional). Misleading.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches coins by name or symbol, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_coin (retrieves specific coin) or get_price (price data).

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. Mentions api_key required but without explanation of why or alternatives.

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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions a cost of $0.02 but does not cover rate limits, authentication details, or potential blocking. The agent has insufficient transparency for a paid API call.

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 and to the point, but it lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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, the description should explain return values. It does not. Parameter details are missing, and for a paid tool, more context is 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 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. 'coin' is defaulted to 'bitcoin' but no format guidance (symbol vs name), and 'api_key' is required but not explained. This is inadequate.

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 aggregates social sentiment and market mood for a coin, which is a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on contracts, tokens, or other metrics.

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 vs. alternatives, such as get_fear_greed or other sentiment-related tools. The description does not mention conditions or 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or requires specific authentication (beyond implying an API key). No information on side effects, cost implications, or rate limits is provided, leaving behavioral uncertainty.

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 (one sentence), but it omits important details. It is front-loaded with key data points, yet the brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. Every word is informative, but more structure (e.g., listing parameters or usage context) would improve it.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should fully explain the tool's behavior and return values. It mentions some fields (supply, dominance, peg status) but does not specify the output format, error handling, or the significance of the '$0.01' cost hint. The description is incomplete for an AI agent to use 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'api_key' parameter. While an API key is a common parameter, its purpose, format, and where to obtain it remain undocumented. The description adds no semantic meaning 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 states it provides a stablecoin market overview with supply, dominance, and peg status, which is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose. However, it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve') and does not differentiate it from siblings like get_coin or get_price, which might also return stablecoin data.

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. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without any context, an AI agent cannot decide when to select 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.

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions the cost ($0.01) and the data categories returned, but lacks disclosure of side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter, or any destructive behavior. It adds some value but is insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise with two short phrases that front-load the purpose and include a cost note. Every word serves a purpose with zero 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?

Given no output schema and only one parameter, the description still lacks details on the output format, interpretation of the data, or any usage constraints. A more complete description would help agents understand what to expect from the response.

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 does not explain the single parameter (api_key). The description offers no additional meaning about how to use the parameter, what it represents, or any constraints. This is a critical gap.

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 a one-call market overview covering prices, sentiment, global data, and top movers. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects (e.g., get_coin, get_global, get_price_summary).

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 a broad market snapshot but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage guidance is implicit from the overview scope.

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; description only mentions a $0.02 cost. No disclosure of side effects, permissions, rate limits, data scope, or update frequency. A mutation-safe hint is absent, and the cost hint is the only behavioral clue.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence plus a cost note. Front-loaded with purpose and cost. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, and there is no structured presentation.

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, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain input requirements, return format, or behavioral traits, making the tool hard to use 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%; description offers no explanation of the required parameters 'address' and 'api_key'. No format hints, possible values, or purpose beyond the tool name.

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 'Token holder distribution analysis from DEX data', specifying the verb (analysis, implied retrieval) and resource (token holder distribution from DEX data). It distinguishes from siblings like get_coin or get_price by focusing on holder distribution and DEX source.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparative advice against siblings like get_coin or get_summary.

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 only reveals that api_key is required, but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or data source. Minimal behavioral transparency.

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?

Extremely concise at 5 words. No filler. However, could benefit from slight expansion for clarity.

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 listing tool with 3 params and no output schema, description is minimal but covers core purpose. Lacks explanation of limit behavior or what constitutes 'top coins', but adequate for basic selection.

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 only 33% (only api_key has a description). Description adds no clarity for 'vs' or 'limit' parameters beyond the schema defaults. The mention of api_key required duplicates schema description.

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 clearly states it returns top coins by market cap, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_top_gainers, get_top_losers, and get_trending by focusing on market cap ranking.

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?

Only mentions api_key requirement. No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_trending or get_top_volume. No context on data freshness or suitability for different use cases.

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 exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only mentions api_key requirement. No mention of read-only nature, rate limits, or response behavior. Minimal transparency.

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?

Very concise single sentence. Information is front-loaded. The parentheses hide 'api_key required' but overall efficient.

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 exists. Description fails to describe return format or structure. For a tool with no output schema, this is a significant 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 coverage is 50% (only api_key has a description). Description adds 'api_key required' which is useful but contradicts schema (required array empty). Does not explain 'limit' parameter beyond default. Slight contradiction noted.

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 clearly states it returns 'Top 24h gainers', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_top_losers and get_top_volume. However, it does not specify if gainers are by percentage or absolute value, slightly reducing clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_top or get_trending. The only note is 'api_key required', which is a prerequisite but does not help with selection among 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?

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. Only discloses api_key requirement. Does not mention that it is a read-only operation, rate limits, data freshness, or response format.

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?

Description is very short and to the point. No fluff, but could be slightly improved by front-loading the action verb.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on what constitutes a 'loser' (percentage change?), exact timeframe (last 24 hours from now?), sorting, or pagination behavior.

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?

Description states 'api_key required' but schema marks api_key as optional (required: []). This contradiction adds incorrect information. Description does not explain the limit parameter, which is undocumented in 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?

Description states 'Top 24h losers' which clearly indicates the resource (24-hour losers) and timeframe. The name includes 'get', making the action implicit. It is clear but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_top_gainers or get_top. Only mentions api_key required, which is a prerequisite, not usage context.

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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements beyond schema. The cost hint ($0.01) is present but minimal.

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?

Description is extremely concise (two fragments) but lacks structure or completeness. While brevity is valued, it omits essential information about the tool.

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 two simple parameters, the description is still insufficient. It does not clarify return format, sorting, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_top' or 'get_coin'.

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 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters 'limit' and 'api_key' are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their semantics.

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 states it returns top coins by 24h trading volume, which is a clear resource and metric. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top' or 'get_trending', and fails to specify scope (e.g., all coins or a subset).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_top_gainers' or 'get_price_summary'. The description lacks context for appropriate 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only discloses the API key requirement, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, response size, or whether it is read-only. This minimal disclosure is insufficient.

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 sentence that is direct and without any fluff. Every word is necessary and the structure is optimal for quick understanding.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a prerequisite. However, it lacks details on what the response contains (e.g., top trending coins, time frame) and does not differentiate among multiple trending-related sibling tools, leaving the agent with incomplete 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description merely repeats the requirement for an API key without adding new semantics. The schema already documents the parameter with a similar description, so the description adds no extra value beyond the baseline.

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 trending coins on CoinGecko, specifying the resource and distinguishing it from siblings like get_meme_trending and trending_categories.

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 mentions that an API key is required, which serves as a usage prerequisite. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_meme_trending, nor does it specify 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (API key is required but not explained), rate limits, potential errors, or what constitutes a 'whale' definition. The cost hint is minimal.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail—it earns its place but misses crucial information that could be added without bloat. Striking a balance would improve it.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter details, error conditions, or any operational context. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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 does not explain any parameter semantics. The agent must infer that 'address' likely refers to a token contract, 'api_key' is authentication, and 'minValue' is a threshold. No details on format, constraints, or usage are provided.

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's purpose: 'Track large transactions and whale movements for any token.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the many sibling tools (e.g., price analysis, alerts, holders). The mention of '$0.03' adds a cost context but does not detract.

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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or which sibling tools might be better suited for related tasks. The agent is left without context for decision-making.

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 the description carries the burden. It only hints at cost ($0.03) but does not disclose safety, side effects, or other behavioral traits like rate limits or idempotency.

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 includes a cost note. It lacks structure and detail, but is not overly verbose. Could be improved by front-loading purpose and separating cost.

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, the description should hint at return format or structure. It does not. The tool has moderate complexity (correlation matrix), and the description is incomplete for an agent to understand what is returned.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation for parameters. 'days' is implied by 'N days', but 'coins' and 'api_key' are not described, leaving the agent guessing about format and purpose.

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 that the tool computes a correlation matrix between top coins over N days, matching the name and distinguishing from sibling tools like compare_coins.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like compare_coins or get_price. The description only states what it does, not when 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?

Minimally disclosed: it's off-chain with on-chain plans, and $0.01 fee. No info on idempotency, reversibility, authentication requirements (beyond api_key), rate limits, or error conditions. With no annotations, burden fully on description.

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?

Three short sentences, no redundancy. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., list parameters), but overall direct and efficient.

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, no annotations, and the description misses critical context: sender identification, prerequisites, success/failure behavior, and edge cases. For a payment tool, this is insufficient.

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 covers 67% of parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema's 'amount in micro-USDC' and 'recipient's API key'. The api_key parameter is not explained at all; description doesn't clarify it identifies the sender.

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?

Clearly states it sends USDC credits between agents on CryptoBoss, distinguishing it from the many informational sibling tools. Mentions off-chain settlement and a fee of $0.01.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., registration, sufficient balance), and no exclusions or cautionary notes.

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 discloses key behaviors: the key includes no calls by default and activation requires payment. It does not mention limitations or return format, which would be helpful.

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 short sentences, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded: 'Get a free API key'.

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 parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and next step. However, it omits how the key is returned or how to use it with sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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, so description does not need to add param info. Baseline for 0 params 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 it is for getting a free API key, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'free API key'. It distinguishes from siblings which are all about data queries or actions on data.

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 context on when to use (to get a key) and the next step (pay via /api/pay). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but alternatives are not needed as no sibling tool offers registration.

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. Description mentions 'notifies when coin hits target' but does not explain notification method, frequency, or implications of the '$0.01' cost. Behavior is not fully disclosed.

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?

Description is very short but not well-structured. The fragment '$0.01' is unclear and may be misleading. Could be more informative while remaining concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain key aspects such as parameter usage, cost, or expected behavior.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema structure. No explanation of 'target' unit, 'condition' enum values, or required api_key.

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 clearly states the action (create price alert) and trigger condition (coin hits target). However, no differentiation from sibling tools like delete_alert or get_alerts.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_alerts to view alerts, delete_alert to remove). The description provides no context for appropriate 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, the description fails to disclose key behaviors like authentication requirement (api_key implied), data freshness, pagination, or what 'hot' means. Minimal behavioral 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?

Extremely short, but the '$0.01' seems irrelevant and wastes space. Could be more informative without being 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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks essential details like return format, cost indication, or how to use the api_key. Incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 does not explain any parameters. 'limit' is not mentioned, and 'api_key' is not described. No added value over schema names.

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 it shows 'hot crypto categories ranked by market cap change', which is a specific verb+resource+sorting. It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like 'get_categories' but not fully, and the '$0.01' is unclear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_categories' or 'get_trending'. No exclusions or context provided.

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