CryptoData API

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses cost ($0.05) but omits behavioral details such as required authentication (api_key), rate limits, or what triggers the cost. Also does not specify if the audit returns a report, score, or raw data.

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

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

Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes cost. Every word serves a purpose, but it could benefit from slight expansion to improve 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 the tool has 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain input data, return value, or any prerequisites (e.g., API key).

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 adds no information about parameters (chain, address, api_key). It does not explain the role or expected format of any parameter, leaving the agent to guess from the schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a deep contract audit, listing specific risk categories (liquidity, holder risk, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_solana_token (for Solana) and general price checkers.

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., other audit or analysis tools). The cost note is informational but not usage guidance.

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 burden. It mentions a cost ($0.05) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any required permissions, or rate limits. The term 'deep analysis' is vague.

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 includes key details (attributes and cost). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be structured with more specifics.

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 low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, any prerequisites, or what 'deep analysis' fully entails.

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 50% (only mint described). The description does not explain the 'api_key' parameter format or purpose, nor does it elaborate on the expected format of 'mint'. It adds minimal value 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 clearly states it performs a deep Solana token analysis, listing specific attributes like mint authority, freeze authority, supply, decimals, and metadata. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_coin' or 'get_token_holders' which have different scopes.

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. Among many sibling analysis tools, explicit context for selection is missing.

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 of $0.005, which is a behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose other important traits such as whether it is a read-only operation, authentication requirements (api_key purpose is unclear), rate limits, or side effects. The cost disclosure 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 very concise (two short sentences), which is efficient. However, it could include more useful information without becoming overly long, such as clarifying the api_key parameter. It earns a mid score for being compact but lacking necessary 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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter description, the tool is insufficiently documented. While the tool is simple, the description omits crucial context like the return format, balance meaning, and authentication steps, leaving the agent with 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?

The description adds no meaning to the single required parameter 'api_key' beyond the schema's type definition. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no explanation of what the key represents or how it should be obtained, making parameter interpretation impossible.

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 an agent's CryptoBoss API balance. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_usage' or 'check_approvals', but the balance focus is distinct.

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 (e.g., 'pay_agent' to add funds or 'get_portfolio_value' for portfolio balances). There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide to invoke 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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. It only lists detection capabilities and cost.

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—with no wasted words. It includes the cost, but front-loading is 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?

Given no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves critical gaps: no return value explanation, no usage prerequisites, and incomplete parameter semantics.

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 must clarify parameters but only vaguely mentions 'address' for token approval risks. It does not specify format or purpose for 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks token approval risks, including specific aspects like infinite approval detection and spending limits, making it distinct from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for checking token approval risks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, nor mentions alternatives despite 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic purpose but does not disclose whether it is read-only, consumes rate limits, or any other behavioral traits.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it could include more detail without losing conciseness, such as what constitutes 'usage'.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about the return value, error handling, and what specific usage metrics are checked.

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 schema description (0% coverage). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the name; it does not explain what 'usage' means or how to interpret the balance.

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, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling tools like get_price or get_fear_greed which also check 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 alternatives, such as other check tools. No context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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 discloses the cost ($0.02) but does not state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention rate limits, error handling, or side effects. The read-only nature can be inferred but is not explicit.

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 the cost appended, making it concise and well-structured. However, it could be improved by adding parameter details without losing brevity.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain how to use parameters (e.g., coins format, vs currency) or describe the output structure (e.g., list of objects, table). The cost is noted, but overall context for agent selection and invocation 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the three parameters (vs, coins, api_key). The phrase 'multiple coins' loosely hints at the coins parameter, but the format (comma-separated) and meaning of vs (quote currency) are not clarified. The agent gets minimal guidance beyond the schema itself.

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, listing specific data points (price, market cap, volume, 24h change, ATH). The verb 'compare' and resource 'coins' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like get_price (single coin) or get_summary (summary stats).

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 implicitly guides use for comparing multiple coins, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives. Siblings exist for single coin or top lists, but no exclusion criteria 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?

No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions a cost of $0.005 but does not state whether deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, or if there are side effects on related data.

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

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

The description is brief (two phrases) but lacks structure. It front-loads the verb but omits details that would justify conciseness—content is minimal, not efficiently complete.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and missing parameter semantics, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to reliably invoke the tool, especially with required fields api_key and alert_id undefined.

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 tool description adds no explanation for api_key or alert_id beyond their types and required status. The agent receives no guidance on how to obtain these values or valid constraints.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a price alert by ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alerts or 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 is provided on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., does the alert exist?), or when not to use it. Agents must infer context from sibling names 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 carries the full burden. It only mentions a cost of $0.005 but lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements beyond the schema, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 plus cost), which is concise, but it omits critical information. The cost sentence provides some value, but overall the structure lacks 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 the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the return format, pagination, error handling, or any other behavioral context needed 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter 'api_key'. The description does not explain what the api_key is, how to obtain it, or its format, leaving the agent without sufficient 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?

The description clearly states 'List all active price alerts', which is a specific verb (List) and resource (active price alerts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_alert and set_price_alert by focusing on listing only active 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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include delete_alert and set_price_alert, but the description provides no context for choosing this one.

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 disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions scanning. It does not clarify if the tool is read-only, what it returns, cost implications beyond the cryptic '$0.03', or rate limits.

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 (two fragments). The first sentence effectively communicates the core purpose. However, the '$0.03' is not clearly structured and may be noise.

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 is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's output format, behavior complexity, or integration with other tools like get_price. The agent lacks critical context for proper 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 input schema has zero description coverage (0%). The description fails to explain the 'coins' parameter (format, allowed values, default) or the 'api_key' requirement, leaving the agent to infer from schema defaults 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 the tool scans price differences between CEX and DEX markets, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_price or get_exchanges. The verb 'scan' is specific, though the appended '$0.03' is ambiguous and may confuse.

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 over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. The agent receives no 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 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (yes, read-only), authentication requirements beyond api_key, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The '$0.02' is ambiguous and not a standard behavioral disclosure.

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 overly terse, consisting of a single sentence with an ambiguous cost note. While short, it is under-specified and fails to convey necessary details, making it ineffective rather than 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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the returned data, parameter effects, or any limitations, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 tool description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters (sort, chain, limit, api_key). The agent has no guidance on how to use them.

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 'Liquidity pools across DEXs' clearly indicates the resource (liquidity pools) and domain (DEXs), but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get_defi_protocol or get_defi_yields.

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. There is no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_defi_tvl or get_defi_yields, nor any prerequisites or restrictions.

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 a cost of $0.02, which is a helpful disclosure about per-call expense, but it does not state that the tool is read-only or whether it makes external API calls. It lacks any discussion of side effects, rate limits, authentication needs beyond api_key (which is a parameter), or whether data is cached. The behavioral picture is 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 extremely short – only one phrase plus a cost note. While it is concise, it sacrifices essential information. Important elements like what exactly is returned (list, object, etc.) are omitted. The structure is minimal but not efficiently informative; it feels under-specified rather than succinct.

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 absence of output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter coverage, the tool requires a comprehensive description to convey its return format, required inputs, and behavior. The description provides almost no contextual completeness; the agent cannot infer what data the breakdown includes, whether it supports multiple protocols, or any nuances. The high number of similar sibling tools makes this gap particularly problematic.

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 two parameters (slug and api_key) with schema description coverage at 0% – neither parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no explanation of what 'slug' represents (e.g., a protocol identifier) or how to format it. Since the description contributes zero added meaning to the parameters, the score is low.

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 'DeFi protocol breakdown with chain TVL', which indicates the tool retrieves a breakdown of a DeFi protocol including chain TVL. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or 'fetch', and among sibling tools like get_defi_pools, get_defi_tvl, get_defi_yields, it fails to clearly distinguish what makes this tool unique. The purpose is implied but not fully differentiated.

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 any of the many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_defi_tvl, get_defi_pools). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without guidance on tool 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, the description must fully convey behavioral traits, but it only notes a cost of $0.02. It fails to disclose data source, update frequency, permissions, or whether it is read-only. The behavioral context 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 short (two fragments) and front-loaded with purpose, but sacrifices necessary detail. It is concise but under-specified, earning a middle score.

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 inadequate. It does not explain output format, pagination, or how to use chain/limit parameters. The tool's full context is not provided.

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 defines three parameters (chain, limit, api_key) with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter meaning, defaults, or usage context. The description adds no value 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 'Protocols ranked by TVL. $0.02.' indicates the main function (listing protocols by TVL) but is vague and does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_defi_pools or get_defi_protocol. It mentions cost but lacks specificity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_defi_pools or get_defi_protocol. The description does not specify context, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It mentions 'across 200+ chains' indicating broad scope, and '$0.02' hints at cost, but it does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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

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

The description is very concise (one short sentence plus cost note). It front-loads the main idea, but lacks structure (e.g., no sections or bullet points). While not verbose, it is arguably too brief to convey essential 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 the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what data is returned, how to use limit or minApy, or what the response structure looks like.

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 information about the parameters (chain, limit, minApy, api_key). The description only implicitly mentions chains but does not explain defaults, valid values, or how parameters affect results. It provides no added 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 states 'DeFi yield farming: APY, TVL, protocols across 200+ chains', which clearly indicates the tool retrieves yield farming data including APY, TVL, and protocols. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_defi_tvl' (TVL only) and 'get_defi_protocol' (protocol info) by combining multiple aspects, though it does not explicitly state it returns a list.

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_defi_pools' or 'get_defi_tvl'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or exclusion 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?

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?

Mentions the cost ($0.005) and that history is included, providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, the description should disclose more about rate limits, pagination, or required authentication beyond api_key. The cost info is a positive but 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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, leaving critical gaps. Conciseness is beneficial but not when it omits required information for a tool with two undocumented 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?

Fails to provide enough context given no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter explanations. The agent cannot infer what the response includes, how limit affects results, or if there are any constraints. Incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 either parameter. The 'limit' parameter's purpose and effect are unclear, and 'api_key' is mentioned only as required with no additional context. The description adds no value over 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?

Clearly states it retrieves the Fear & Greed Index with historical data. The name 'get_fear_greed' combined with the description makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling crypto 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 this tool vs. siblings. Does not specify prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and alternative tools.

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

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

The description reveals what data the tool returns (gas fees) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or authentication needs. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight.

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 with a single sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, but it omits important details making it less helpful overall.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description should provide enough context for correct use. It fails to explain the api_key parameter, how to interpret the output, or how this differs from the sibling 'get_gas_all', making it incomplete.

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), and the tool description does not mention or clarify its purpose. The description adds no value 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 clearly states the tool is about Ethereum gas and lists the output fields (low, average, fast, base fee, price). However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and it fails to distinguish from the sibling 'get_gas_all'.

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_gas_all'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions a cost of $0.01, which is insufficient. No information about data freshness, read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects is provided.

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 fragments), which is concise but lacks a verb and structure. It conveys the core purpose briefly but omits necessary 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?

Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool remains poorly defined. The agent lacks information about return format, data fields, or how to interpret the results, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 or in the tool description. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain what the key is for or how to obtain it.

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 'Multi-chain gas tracker' clearly indicates the tool retrieves gas fee information across multiple blockchains. The name 'get_gas_all' and sibling 'get_gas' imply differentiation, but no explicit scope or output details are 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 like 'get_gas'. There are no prerequisites, context, or examples, 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 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 provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions 'risk watch' and cost, omitting whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. No explanation of returned data structure.

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; wastes space on cost note without adding useful context. Lacks structure such as input/output hints or usage examples.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description provides almost no actionable information. Agent cannot determine what data is returned or how to interpret 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 description does not explain any parameter. 'chain' with default 'all' and required 'api_key' are left completely undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.

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

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

Description uses vague verb 'watch' and ambiguous resource 'DeFi positions', fails to specify output type (list, status, etc.). $0.02 indicates cost but does not clarify purpose. No differentiation from sibling tools like get_portfolio_health 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 like get_portfolio_health or get_whale_moves. Context of liquidation monitoring is implied only from name, not 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 are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only mentions the cost ($0.05) but does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication requirements, or any 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 concise: one sentence plus a cost note. No wasted words.

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

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

With two undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It lacks details on input format, output structure, and 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'api_key' and 'address'. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's property 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 clearly states the tool performs rug risk analysis with specific outputs (risk score, flags, liquidity, holder analysis). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_contract and get_meme_scan by focusing on rug risk for meme 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 versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with similar tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the cost ($0.05) but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or what happens when no new tokens are found

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 front-loaded, but it lacks structure. It is concise but sacrifices necessary 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters all undocumented, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide parameter semantics, return value expectations, or behavioral 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 description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (chain, limit, minLiq, api_key). The mention of 'liq, volume, age, txns' is not explicitly linked to parameters

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

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

The description clearly states the tool scans new meme tokens across DEXs and lists liquidity, volume, age, and transactions. It distinguishes from siblings like get_meme_analyze and get_meme_trending

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 analyze_contract or get_meme_trending. The description does not mention any preconditions or scenarios

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 gives a minimal hint about cost ('$0.03') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the call is read-only, requires authentication beyond the API key, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient 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?

The description is extremely concise at 8 words, which is ideal for readability but comes at the cost of completeness. While it avoids fluff, it omits crucial parameter and behavioral 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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description should at least explain the parameters and the result shape. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps in understanding what the tool does and how to use it.

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

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

The input schema has two parameters (limit and api_key) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain either parameter, leaving the agent to guess at their meaning and 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 states the tool returns trending DEX tokens by volume, which is a clear verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_trending or get_top_volume, which may have overlapping functionality.

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. There is no mention of context, preconditions, or exclusion criteria. The description simply states the purpose without any comparative information.

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 discloses a cost of $0.01, which is a behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention read-only nature, rate limits, or data freshness. 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?

Two sentences with no waste, but critically under-specified. Lacks details about output, supported chains, and cost semantics. Conciseness does not compensate for missing 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?

Despite only one parameter and no output schema, the description fails to specify which chains are covered, what 'health' metric means, or how the cost applies. Agent cannot fully understand tool capabilities.

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% for the single parameter api_key. The description does not explain the parameter's purpose, format, or how to obtain it. No value 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?

The description states 'Blockchain network health and status across major chains', which indicates a verb+resource (get/tool returns health). However, 'health and status' is vague and doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_gas or get_global.

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. The description mentions 'across major chains' but doesn't specify exclusions or conditions. Sibling tools cover other crypto metrics, so context is missing.

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 discloses a cost of $0.01, which is a behavioral trait, but fails to mention other aspects like data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. Missing detail on return 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?

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It front-loads the main purpose but misses structure and 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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, return value structure, and usage context, making it insufficient for effective tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does not explain any of the parameters (vs, coin, days, api_key) beyond implying 'days' through the listed periods. No guidance on valid values or defaults.

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 OHLC chart data with specific periods (1d, 7d, 30d, 90d candlesticks). However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like get_price or get_summary, which may also return historical 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 alternatives. The description does not mention context for use, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions a cost of $0.02, which is helpful, but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication (though api_key param hints at it), or any other behavioral traits like data freshness or limits.

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 sentence plus cost), but it sacrifices essential detail. While conciseness is valued, the lack of structure and omission of key information reduces its effectiveness.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description should explain how to format holdings and what the output contains. It only offers a vague list of metrics, leaving the agent without enough 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 adds no information about the parameters (api_key, holdings). The meaning of 'holdings' and its format are entirely undefined, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate them.

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 indicates the tool provides portfolio diversification metrics (concentration, correlation, sector exposure), making the purpose clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'gets' or 'calculates', but the resource is well-defined and distinct from 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_portfolio_value or other analysis tools. The description does not provide context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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 carries the burden. It mentions the cost ($0.01) as a behavioral trait, but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, rate limits, or how it handles invalid JSON input.

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 sentence plus a cost note. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 and limited parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return format, error handling, or time expectations, which is insufficient 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 says 'from holdings JSON' which aligns with the holdings parameter, but does not add meaning for the api_key parameter (which has no schema description). With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool calculates total portfolio value in USD from a holdings JSON. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_price or get_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 includes a cost hint ($0.01) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_portfolio_health). No when-not-to-use or preconditions are mentioned.

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 discloses the output contents (high, low, average, volatility) and cost ($0.02), but it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or that the operation is read-only. The cost hint adds some 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 very concise (one sentence plus cost note), front-loaded with key information. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description should compensate. It explains the return values and mentions 'days', but omits explanations for 'vs', 'coin', and 'api_key', and does not describe the output format. It feels incomplete for a practical 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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only implicitly explains the 'days' parameter via 'over N days' and mentions cost, but does not clarify the 'vs', 'coin', or 'api_key' parameters. It adds minimal value 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 clearly states the tool provides price statistics (high, low, average, volatility) over a number of days, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_price (current price) or get_ohlc (OHLC data). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_summary which might overlap.

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. It does not mention when-not-to-use or list sibling tools, leaving agents to infer 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 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses a cost of $0.02, but lacks details on what the tool mutates, permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. For a data retrieval tool, more context (e.g., update frequency, data source) is needed.

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 one sentence, but it is too terse to be effective. It lacks structure (e.g., no sections or examples) and feels incomplete rather than optimally compact.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), a longer description is still warranted. The description fails to explain what 'aggregated social sentiment' means, what the output looks like, or how it relates to market mood. It does not sufficiently prepare an agent 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 adds almost no meaning. The term 'for a coin' loosely hints at the coin parameter, but it does not explain api_key or clarify the meaning of coin (e.g., symbol vs name). Both parameters remain underdocumented.

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 'Aggregated social sentiment and market mood for a coin', clearly identifying the resource (coin) and action (aggregating sentiment). However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like get_fear_greed or get_global which also measure market mood, 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description omits context such as suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description hints at a cost ('$0.01') but does not explicitly state whether it is a fee per call or something else. There is no mention of side effects, authentication needs beyond api_key, or rate limits.

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 and a dollar amount) and gets the main point across. However, the '$0.01' is ambiguous and could be misleading or require clarification. It is concise but lacks structure.

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 a minimal description, the tool is severely incomplete. The agent has no information about return format, possible errors, or how to interpret the '$0.01' cost.

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 tool description does not explain the single parameter (api_key) – its purpose, format, or how to obtain it. The description adds no 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 clearly states it provides a 'Stablecoin market overview' covering supply, dominance, and peg status. The resource and purpose are evident, but the verb 'get' is implied rather than explicit, and it does not differentiate from other market overview 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?

Only a brief description is provided with no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_coin or get_price_summary. No context on prerequisites or 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a cost of $0.01, which is useful, but omits auth requirements (though api_key is in schema), side effects, or response characteristics.

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 with no fluff. However, it achieves conciseness at the expense of missing important details about parameters and behavior.

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 sparse annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It doesn't clarify the format of 'prices', 'sentiment', etc., leaving the agent with 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 has one parameter (api_key) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its purpose or usage. No value 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?

The description clearly states it provides a market overview covering prices, sentiment, global data, and top movers, which is a specific verb+resource. It hints at aggregation but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price or get_global. The description only lists what it does, with no context on preferences 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 only mentions a cost of $0.02 but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is destructive. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is severely lacking.

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 with two sentences, but it omits critical information. While it is not verbose, the conciseness comes at the expense of completeness. The structure does not front-load the most important details like required parameters or output.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the specific DEXs used, or how it differs from similar analysis tools.

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 two parameters (address, api_key) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what the address represents (e.g., token contract address) or the purpose of the 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?

The description clearly states it is for 'Token holder distribution analysis from DEX data,' specifying the verb 'analysis' and resource 'token holder distribution' with a data source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_coins or get_coin, which have different focuses.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or context for selecting it over similar tools like analyze_solana_token or get_top_holders (if such exists).

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 provided. The '$0.01' hint suggests a cost per call, but the description lacks details on side effects, required permissions (api_key is required but not explained), rate limits, or data freshness.

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 phrases), which is concise but lacks structure. It is not bloated, but the brevity sacrifices clarity and 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 annotations, no output schema, and only one sentence, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return format, pagination, sorting order, or the effect of the limit parameter, making it insufficient 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' (default 20) and 'api_key' are present in the schema without any semantic context, leaving the agent to guess their 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 returns top coins by 24h trading volume, with a specific verb ('top') and resource ('coins by volume'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_top_gainers or get_trending, but could be more explicit about the time frame (24h) being the volume window.

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_trending, get_top_gainers). The description does not specify context or exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose but fails to mention behavioral traits like API key requirement (only in schema), rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or what a 'whale move' means. It lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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) and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity. It is not too long, but the conciseness reduces effectiveness.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, how results are paginated or filtered, or any time-range constraints. It needs more context to be fully useful.

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 that 'address' is likely the token contract address, that 'api_key' is required for authentication, or that 'minValue' default 100000 probably refers to USD. This leaves ambiguity.

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 tracks 'large transactions and whale movements for any token'. The verb 'Track' and resource 'whale movements' are specific, and it distinguishes this tool from other data tools in the sibling list (e.g., get_price, get_coin).

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or compare with similar tools. The cost ($0.03) is noted but doesn't guide 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?

Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. Only behavioral trait disclosed is a cost of $0.03. No mention of read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. Inadequate for a tool that likely performs an 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 (one sentence plus cost), but it omits critical information. Conciseness is positive, but here it sacrifices completeness, making it under-specified. Front-loaded with purpose, but lacks depth.

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 complexity of a correlation matrix tool and no output schema or annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the output format, how to interpret the matrix, or required authentication. Very insufficient for an 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 coverage is 0%, yet description fails to explain any parameter. 'days', 'coins', and 'api_key' are not described. Default values are not mentioned. The description only says 'N days' which weakly hints at the 'days' parameter, but not its exact usage 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?

Clearly states it computes a correlation matrix between coins over a number of days. The verb is implied and resource is explicit. However, the mention of 'top coins' could be misleading since users can specify any coins via the 'coins' parameter. Sibling tool 'compare_coins' might be seen as similar, but description differentiates by operation type.

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 'compare_coins'. No scenario or context provided. The only hint is the cost, but that doesn't help with selection decision.

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 carries full burden. It mentions 'Off-chain settlement with on-chain roadmap' and a $0.01 fee, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or reversibility.

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

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

Two sentences with zero waste. Every sentence contributes meaning (action, settlement type, cost). Highly 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 and low parameter count, the description covers the essential behavior. Could mention limitations or error scenarios, but for a simple payment tool it is adequate.

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 context beyond the schema: clarifies amount is in micro-USDC and notes a $0.01 cost. Schema covers 67% of parameters; api_key lacks description but is obvious. Overall, adds useful but not exhaustive detail.

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 ('Send'), resource ('USDC credits from one agent to another'), and platform ('CryptoBoss'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools (mostly read/analysis tools).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the platform and cost but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when-not or alternative tool references are given.

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

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

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?

The description mentions a cost of $0.01, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as that it is a write operation, potential side effects, or how notifications are delivered.

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 plus cost note), which makes it concise but risks being too vague. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could benefit from more structure.

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 no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of return values, error handling, and how the alert mechanism works beyond hitting a target.

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 indirectly explains 'coin' and 'target' via 'coin hits target', but does not describe 'api_key' or 'condition' (which has an enum). This leaves two parameters without any semantic guidance.

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 creates a price alert that notifies when a coin hits a target price. It uses a specific verb 'create' and resource 'price alert', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alerts and delete_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?

The description implies usage for setting price alerts but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for using the 'condition' parameter.

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?

Discloses ranking by market cap change and a Cost hint ($0.01), but lacks details on output format, limit behavior, or side effects. With no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with key purpose. Efficient but could be slightly more structured without losing 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, no parameter descriptions, and only minimal behavior details. Does not explain return format, pagination, or error scenarios, leaving gaps for an 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 coverage is 0%, and description adds no explanation for parameters 'api_key' or 'limit'. Only the default of 10 provides some clue, but incomplete.

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 'Hot crypto categories ranked by market cap change', specifying the resource and ranking criterion. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_categories' which likely lists all categories without ranking, though explicit differentiation is missing.

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 other category tools. Context of use is implied but not stated.

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