CryptoData API

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of disclosure. It reveals the tool performs an audit but does not state whether it is read-only, what resources are consumed, authentication requirements (api_key is required but not explained), or potential side effects. The only behavioral detail is the cost per use.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence plus cost) but at the expense of necessary detail. It presents the tool's purpose efficiently but lacks structure for parameter descriptions, return value, or usage examples. It is not verbose but incomplete for an agent's needs.

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 complexity (auditing smart contracts for multiple risk factors) and the lack of output schema or parameter docs, the description is insufficient. It lists what it checks but not what results are produced (e.g., a score, report, or pass/fail). The agent cannot infer whether the output is actionable or just a string.

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 parameters. The schema shows three parameters (api_key, address, chain) but the description does not explain their roles, formats, or defaults. For example, 'chain' defaults to 'ethereum' but this is not mentioned. The agent receives no assistance beyond the raw schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs a 'deep contract audit' covering specific risk factors (liquidity, holder risk, bundled supply, honeypot, price manipulation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are mostly data retrieval or checking functions, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 only usage hint is the cost ($0.05), but there is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where this tool is preferred, or conditions to avoid using it. The sibling list includes related tools like 'check_approvals' and 'get_token_holders' but no comparative advice.

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

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

The description discloses the cost ($0.05), but lacks other behavioral details such as read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. Given no annotations, the description carries full burden and 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 and front-loaded with key information. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Every sentence is earned, but more detail would improve usability.

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 complexity ('deep analysis') and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or what 'deep' entails. The cost mention is helpful but not sufficient.

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% (mint has description, api_key does not). The description does not add meaning for api_key or provide formatting details beyond what the schema offers. It fails to compensate for the missing 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs 'Deep Solana token analysis' and lists specific attributes (mint authority, freeze authority, supply, decimals, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_contract or get_coin, which focus on contracts or basic price info.

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 only extra note is the cost ($0.05), but there is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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

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

The description includes a cost note ($0.005), which is behavioral info, but no other traits like auth requirements or response nature. No annotations to contradict.

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 with one sentence, but it omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and cost but lacks return value description and parameter explanation, leaving gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'api_key' parameter's role or format. It only implies it identifies the agent, which is insufficient.

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 'Check an agent's CryptoBoss API balance' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pay_agent' and other getter 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 versus alternatives. The cost note is not a usage guideline. No mention of prerequisites or contexts.

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 lists the risk categories checked (infinite approval, spending limits, dangerous functions), providing some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond api_key. With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior.

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

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

The description is very short and to the point, but includes a pricing note ($0.03) which may be unnecessary. No redundancy or 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?

No output schema is provided and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., risk scores, list of approvals, error handling). Given the complexity of token approval checks, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description entirely fails to explain either parameter (address, api_key). The agent is left to guess what 'address' refers to (token contract? user wallet?) and how api_key is used.

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, specifically infinite approval detection, spending limits, and dangerous functions. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_contract or check_usage.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or link to sibling tools like analyze_contract for deeper contract analysis.

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 only states the purpose but does not mention whether it is read-only, if it triggers any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond 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 a single sentence, efficient and to the point. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to include critical 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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'balance and usage' entails, the output format, or any limits, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 one parameter (api_key) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not add any meaning to the api_key parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Check your API key balance and usage' clearly states the verb (check) and resource (API key balance and usage). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on API key status, which is unique among the listed 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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses a cost of $0.02 per use but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, error handling, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent is left guessing about safety and performance.

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 that covers the core purpose and cost, which is efficient. However, it omits critical parameter details, making it slightly too terse for full usability.

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 complexity (multi-coin comparison with 3 parameters and no output schema), the description lacks essential details: output format, example usage, how to specify coin list, and currency options. The agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. While it mentions 'multiple coins', it does not clarify that the 'coins' parameter expects a comma-separated list, nor does it explain the 'vs' parameter (currency) or 'api_key' role. The listed metrics provide some context but do not map to 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 performs a side-by-side comparison of multiple coins, listing specific metrics (price, market cap, volume, 24h change, ATH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_coin (single coin) or get_top (top lists), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 when comparing specific coins but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price or get_summary. It lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, 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 provided; description carries full burden. Includes cost ($0.005) as behavioral detail but lacks side effects or irreversibility note.

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

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

Extremely concise two-part sentence with no wasted words. Purpose stated first.

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

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

With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, description lacks parameter details and expected response. Simple tool still needs more 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%. Description adds minimal meaning ('by ID') but does not explain api_key role or alert_id format. Baseline not met.

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 verb 'Delete', resource 'price alert', and scope 'by ID'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_alerts' and 'set_price_alert'.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or prerequisites. Does not mention that alert_id must exist beforehand.

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 reveals that only 'active' alerts are listed and includes cost ($0.005). However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements (api_key implied but not described), or whether alerts are user-specific.

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 wasted words. Highly efficient and front-loaded with 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lists what the tool does but does not describe what the output looks like or any pagination/format details, which would help an agent 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 the description does not explain the required 'api_key' parameter at all. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema's type definition.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'active price alerts', distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_price_alert and delete_alert. The cost inclusion adds 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., api_key needed) beyond schema. No exclusions or context about 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?

The description discloses a $0.03 cost per scan, which is an important behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or has other side effects, and with no annotations, the agent lacks complete 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 short (two fragments) but contains essential info. It could be structured better with a sentence format, but it is not excessively verbose.

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

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

No output schema and no description of return format. The tool requires an api_key but no explanation of its origin or usage. For a simple scan tool, key behavioral details are missing.

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 'coins' or 'api_key' parameters. The agent cannot determine valid coin formats or the purpose of the API key from this definition.

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 scans price differences between CEX and DEX markets, which clearly indicates arbitrage detection. It is distinct from siblings like get_price or compare_coins, though the verb 'scan' is less precise than 'detect' or '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 like compare_coins or get_price. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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 discloses that no API key is needed, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not describe whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what the response format looks like. The phrase 'by market cap' implies sorting but not all behavioral aspects.

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

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

The description is two sentences, no superfluous words. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a key behavioral note. Every sentence is earned and efficient.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no required parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but could be improved by briefly noting the output type (e.g., list of categories) or that it returns market cap data. The context of 'crypto categories' is clear, but completeness is moderate for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 parameter 'api_key' described as 'Optional — for billing'. The description adds value by stating 'no API key needed', clarifying that the parameter is not required for the tool's core functionality. This goes beyond the schema's 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?

The description clearly states 'Top crypto categories by market cap', specifying the verb 'get' is implied, resource is categories, and metric is market cap. It also mentions 'no API key needed' which is a distinguishing feature. While there is a sibling 'trending_categories', the description differentiates by metric (market cap vs 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?

The description provides a usage hint by stating 'no API key needed', implying the tool requires no authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trending_categories' or other category-related tools. No when-not-to-use or 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 provided, so description carries the burden. Mentions data types returned and that no API key is needed, but does not explicitly state read-only or other behavioral traits.

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

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

Single concise sentence, front-loaded with key outcome and contents, 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?

Given no output schema and limited schema coverage, description lists information categories but lacks details on response format, pagination, or limitations. Adequate for a simple tool.

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

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

Schema coverage 50% (only api_key has description). Description adds 'no API key needed' clarifying optionality, and implies id identifies the coin. Does not detail id format or other 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?

Clear verb (get) and resource (coin) with specific details (price, ATH, supply, categories, social). Distinguishes from siblings like get_price by promising comprehensive info.

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?

States 'no API key needed' hinting at ease of use. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the name and content imply this is the go-to for detailed coin info.

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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions a cost of $0.02, but fails to specify it's a read-only operation, side effects, or any limitations.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at 8 words, but omits essential information. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it insufficient.

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

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

With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description fails to provide return type, pagination, or examples. It is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (sort, chain, limit, api_key). Agents cannot infer parameter meaning from the description alone.

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

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

The description states 'Liquidity pools across DEXs', which indicates the resource and action implied by the tool name. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings like get_defi_protocol but lacks a verb and 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 guidelines on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_defi_yields or get_defi_tvl. The description provides no context for selection.

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

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

The description mentions a cost ($0.02), which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other important aspects like idempotency, safety (read vs write), or rate limits. The cost addition is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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

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

The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and cost. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but lacks additional structure or 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 absence of an output schema, parameter descriptions, and clear differentiation from numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (api_key and slug). The description does not explain their meaning or format, leaving the agent to infer from names only. This is a significant gap.

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

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

The description states it provides a DeFi protocol breakdown including chain TVL, which is specific enough. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like get_defi_tvl or get_defi_pools by indicating a broader scope, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions cost ($0.02) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements (implied by api_key parameter but not stated), 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 concise with just two sentences. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail. The cost note ($0.02) adds value but does not explain 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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or use cases, making it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 3 parameters (chain, limit, api_key). The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be ambiguous.

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 protocols ranked by TVL. The verb 'ranked' and resource 'protocols' are specific. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like get_defi_protocol or get_defi_pools, but the name itself provides 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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or 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 the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions a cost of $0.02, which is useful, but fails to describe side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements (api_key is required but not mentioned), or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavioral outcomes.

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). While concise, it sacrifices crucial information. It includes the cost, which is helpful, but the structure is fragmented and lacks a clear subject-verb-object flow.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify return data structure, parameter usage, or when to call. The tool cannot be used effectively based on this description alone.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain the parameters. It does not. The parameters chain, limit, minApy are not described at all. The description only mentions high-level concepts (APY, TVL) but does not link them to input fields or provide usage 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 the resource (DeFi yield data including APY, TVL, protocols) and scope (200+ chains), giving a good idea of the tool's purpose. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' and doesn't differentiate from similar siblings like get_defi_pools or get_defi_tvl.

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. Given the abundance of sibling tools related to DeFi, the description should explicitly state when to use this tool over others (e.g., 'use for yield-specific data, not TVL or pool details'). No such information is present.

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 convey behavioral traits. While it states that no API key is needed, it does not explicitly declare the tool as read-only, nor does it mention any rate limits or other behavioral details. The lack of a readOnlyHint or destructiveHint leaves ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that puts the most important information first: the resource and key data fields. Every word earns its place without any filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema, the description should fully explain the return value. It lists three fields (volume, trust score, country) but does not mention pagination, default limit behavior, or if additional fields are returned. This leaves the agent uncertain about the complete output structure.

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

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

The description does not mention any parameters (limit, api_key) or their meanings. With only 50% schema description coverage (api_key has a schema description but limit does not), the description adds no value to parameter understanding. The return fields listed are not 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 resource (exchange listings) and the data fields (volume, trust score, country), and adds the useful note that no API key is needed. It is specific about what the tool returns, but could be more explicit about the action being a listing.

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

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

The description mentions 'no API key needed,' which gives a condition for use when authentication is not required. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools like get_summary or get_top, leaving the agent to infer 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 carries full burden. It discloses a cost ('$0.005') and that history is included, but fails to mention authentication requirements (api_key), rate limits, data freshness, or response structure. Insufficient for informed invocation.

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 (8 words), which is efficient, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads key info but is too brief to be fully useful.

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

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

The tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema, but the description still lacks essential context about the index (e.g., value range, interpretation) and does not explain how history is returned. Incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the two parameters. The parameter names 'api_key' and 'limit' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent needs to know that 'limit' controls historical entries and that 'api_key' is required. The description completely fails to add 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 mentions 'Fear & Greed Index with history' which clearly identifies the resource. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and is very terse. The purpose is clear but under-specified compared to stronger descriptions.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions. The agent gets no help in selection 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. The description mentions a cost of $0.005, but it is unclear whether this is a fee for using the tool or a data point. There is no disclosure of rate limits, permissions, side effects, or data freshness. For a read-only tool, the description is insufficient to inform the agent of 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 extremely brief (one phrase), which is concise but at the expense of necessary information. It could be expanded with a few more sentences to cover usage and return format without becoming overly long.

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, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., whether values are in Gwei or Wei, the structure of the response). It mentions specific fields but not how they are presented. The description is incomplete for an agent to reliably interpret the tool's 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?

The input schema requires an 'api_key' parameter, but the description does not mention it or explain its purpose. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to add meaning beyond the schema for the sole 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 states that the tool provides Ethereum gas data including low, average, fast, and base fee values, plus a cost figure. The verb 'get' is implied by the tool name, and the resource (Ethereum gas) is clear. However, it does not explicitly use an action verb like 'retrieves' or 'fetches', and it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_gas_all', which likely provides similar but more comprehensive data.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_gas_all' or other price-related tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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 what data is returned, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The mention of '$0.01' is ambiguous and does not clarify pricing or usage 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 short at two phrases, which is concise but lacks substantive information. It is front-loaded but does not earn its brevity with useful 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 the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It omits return format, required setup (e.g., where to get an API key), and example 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?

The single parameter 'api_key' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain its purpose or how to obtain the key. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap.

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

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

The description states 'Multi-chain gas tracker', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose of tracking gas prices across multiple chains. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_gas' which may be single-chain, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_gas'. The description provides no context about prerequisites or 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?

The description adds that 'no API key needed', which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other traits like read-only behavior or rate limits. The billing note on the parameter is helpful but limited.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note. No extraneous words or repetitions.

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 no required parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what data is returned (total cap, volume, BTC dominance) and that authentication is optional. This covers the necessary context for 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters (api_key with description 'Optional — for billing'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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

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

The description specifies the tool returns 'global market stats: total cap, volume, BTC dominance,' which is a clear verb-resource pairing with the tool name 'get_global'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_coin' or 'get_price' by focusing on aggregate metrics.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only notes that no API key is needed, but does not mention use cases for the sibling tools or conditions to prefer 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions a cost of $0.01 per call, which is useful, but omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements (despite an api_key parameter), or that it is a read-only operation. The description does not disclose potential side effects or performance 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key purpose. No unnecessary words. However, it is very brief and could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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

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

Given the tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the quote response contains, how to interpret results, or whether it supports all token pairs. For a complex tool like a Jupiter swap quote, more context is needed.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no further parameter-level information beyond the schema. It mentions 'best route, price impact, fees' but does not link these concepts to specific parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 a Jupiter swap quote for any Solana token pair, mentioning best route, price impact, and fees. It uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'Jupiter swap quote', which is distinct from generic price tools. However, it could better differentiate from related tools like get_price or get_arbitrage.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as get_price and get_arbitrage, the description does not clarify that this tool is for swap quotes specifically, not just token prices or arbitrage opportunities. No when-not or prerequisites 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 carries the full burden. It mentions '$0.02' which may imply cost but offers no details on behavior, safety, or return values.

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

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

The description is very short, but this brevity sacrifices informativeness. It is concise but not effective.

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

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

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not clarify what the tool returns or the significance of '$0.02.'

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain what 'chain' (default 'all') or 'api_key' mean, failing to add 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 states 'Liquidation risk watch across DeFi positions,' which gives a general purpose but lacks a specific verb like 'list' or 'get.' It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_defi_pools or get_portfolio_health.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools, the description fails to provide 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 carries full burden. It discloses a cost of $0.05 and mentions return fields (risk score, flags, liquidity, holder analysis), but lacks details on mutability, rate limits, or required authentication beyond the api_key parameter.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose, outputs, and cost. However, a more structured format (e.g., listing outputs) could enhance readability without adding length.

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 params, no output schema), the description covers key aspects but omits parameter format details, response structure, and prerequisites. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 explanation for the two parameters (address, api_key). Address format or network is not specified, and api_key's purpose is implied but not clarified. The description fails to add 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?

Description clearly states the tool provides rug risk analysis for meme tokens, including risk score, flags, liquidity, and holder analysis. The verb 'analyze' is implicit, and it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_meme_scan' and 'analyze_contract'.

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 rug risk assessment of meme tokens but offers no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'analyze_contract' or 'get_meme_scan'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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

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

The description mentions a $0.05 cost and the metrics returned, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, without annotations, it does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. The fee is a notable addition but other behavioral traits are missing.

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), front-loading the key action and metrics. Every word serves a purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from cost.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination, error conditions, or how to interpret results. The cost is mentioned but other important context is omitted.

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 the description must compensate. It mentions 'liq' which relates to 'minLiq', and 'txns' which might relate to volume or age, but it does not explain parameters like 'chain', 'limit', or 'api_key'. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema's names and 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 scans new meme tokens across DEXs and lists key metrics (liq, volume, age, txns). The verb 'scan' distinguishes it from specific analysis or trending, but could be more explicit about differentiation from siblings like 'get_meme_analyze'.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 37 sibling tools, a user or agent needs context on when scanning new tokens is appropriate vs. analyzing or checking trends.

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 but only mentions trending by volume and a cost hint ($0.03). No disclosure of output format, pagination, or side effects.

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

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

The description is very short but the second sentence is a cost note that may be out of place. Could be more informative 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides insufficient information 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain parameters (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 clearly states it retrieves trending DEX tokens sorted by volume. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_trending (likely broader) and get_meme_analyze.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_top_volume or get_trending. No context on prerequisites or limitations.

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 a cost ($0.01), which is important behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits like authentication requirements (beyond api_key), whether it is read-only, 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?

The description is very short (two fragments) and includes a critical detail (cost). It is not verbose, but could benefit from a sentence structure. It 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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and many siblings, the description is too minimal. It lacks usage context, parameter explanation, and differentiation from other 'get_' 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the api_key parameter meaning or usage. The tool has a single required parameter, yet the description offers no added 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 states it provides 'blockchain network health and status across major chains,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. The verb 'get' is implied by the name, but the description adds specificity about the scope (major chains).

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_coin' or 'get_price'. The description does not mention context or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It only mentions a cost of '$0.01' but does not disclose other behaviors like read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or data granularity beyond days.

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 sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and key information, making it quick to parse.

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

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should compensate with richer behavioral and contextual details. It omits return format, required param (api_key), cost implications in context, and usage constraints, leaving the agent underinformed for a 4-parameter tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. The mention of timeframes (1d, 7d, 30d, 90d) loosely relates to the 'days' parameter but fails to map clearly or describe 'vs', 'coin', or 'api_key'. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it provides OHLC chart data with specific timeframes (1d, 7d, 30d, 90d) and mentions candlesticks, making the resource and verb distinct. It differentiates from siblings like get_price or get_price_summary by focusing on candlestick data, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 sibling tools like get_price or get_coin. The description lacks context for appropriate use cases 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 provided. The description does not disclose behavior beyond a cost hint ($0.02). No mention of side effects, auth, or output format.

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

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

Extremely brief but not effective. Lacks essential information; conciseness is overshadowed by incompleteness.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to equip an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The api_key and holdings fields are unspecified, leaving the agent without guidance on input 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 mentions key aspects (concentration, correlation, sector exposure) but lacks a clear verb+resource statement. It hints at portfolio health analysis but is vague.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_portfolio_value or get_network_health. Missing context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a cost of $0.01, which is helpful, but fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies state, error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter.

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

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

The description is very concise—two sentences—saving token usage. It front-loads the main purpose clearly. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, such as usage guidance and behavioral transparency.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and cost. However, it lacks completeness in parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral context. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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

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

Schema coverage is 50% (holdings has description, api_key does not). The description reinforces the holdings parameter but adds no additional meaning for api_key. It does not compensate for the missing schema description of api_key, leaving the agent to infer its 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 the tool calculates total portfolio value in USD from a holdings JSON. It includes a verb (calculate), resource (portfolio value), and input format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling get_portfolio_health, which is semantically close.

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, such as requiring an API key, or when not to use it. The sibling context includes many similar get_ tools, but no differentiation.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It notes that no API key is required, which is helpful, but omits whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or data freshness. The billing note on api_key parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It delivers key information up front (real-time, many coins, no 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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the return value looks like or how to use the parameters. With many sibling price tools, more context is needed to differentiate.

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 description adds no explanation for the vs or coins parameters, leaving their meaning and format ambiguous. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of 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 retrieves real-time crypto prices for over 15,000 coins, with the verb 'get' implicit and resource specified. It distinguishes from siblings like get_price_summary by emphasizing real-time data and wide coverage.

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 'no API key needed,' implying ease of access, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like compare_coins or get_price_summary. Usage context is implied but not fully spelled out.

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 a cost ($0.02) but fails to elaborate on authentication requirements (api_key required), data source, or whether it is read-only or destructive. The minimal disclosure leaves critical gaps.

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

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

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loads the key statistics. It is concise, though could potentially integrate parameter hints 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 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameters, return format, or usage context. However, the tool is relatively simple, so the gap is moderate.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (vs, coin, days, api_key). Only 'N days' is implied from the description. This provides no added value beyond the schema structure.

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 explicitly states the tool provides price statistics (high, low, average, volatility) over N days, clearly matching the name 'get_price_summary'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_price' (current price) and 'get_ohlc' (candlestick 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without context for selection.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden; mentions it's a read operation, cost, and fields, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements beyond optional api_key, or potential error scenarios.

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 no wasted words; front-loads key output fields and cost.

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

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

Adequate for a simple list tool; covers returned fields and cost, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or error handling. With no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 2 params with 50% coverage; description adds no extra meaning beyond schema (limit default 20 and optional api_key), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description explicitly states it retrieves the latest tokens from Pump.fun with specific fields (name, symbol, market cap, age, volume), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_trending or 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 vs alternatives; lacks context on prerequisites, cost implications beyond mentioning $0.03, or any exclusions among many 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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only covers authentication ('no API key needed') but omits details like whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or result 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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without redundancy. Every word adds value.

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

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

For a simple search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic functionality but lacks details on return values, pagination, or any constraints beyond the parameter guidance.

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 meaning to the 'q' parameter by specifying 'by name or symbol', which is absent from the schema. It also clarifies the 'api_key' parameter's optional nature and billing purpose, compensating for the schema's 50% description coverage.

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 verb 'search', the resource 'coins', and the criteria 'by name or symbol'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which are mostly get_* operations.

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 no API key is needed, providing some guidance on authentication. However, it does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives or specify prerequisites for effective use.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.02), a behavioral trait, but fails to mention other important behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the API key, or what the response format is. The description is insufficient for an informed agent.

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

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

The description is extremely short (one sentence), but this brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information for a tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions. It is not appropriately sized given the context.

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

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

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not mention what the tool returns, how to interpret the result, or any error conditions. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based solely on the description.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about the 'coin' parameter (e.g., default is 'bitcoin', format, or expected values) nor about the 'api_key' parameter. The agent must rely solely on the parameter names, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 'Aggregated social sentiment and market mood for a coin' which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_fear_greed' (general sentiment index) and 'get_price' (price data). However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', relying on the tool name for the action.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'get_fear_greed' or 'get_price_summary'. The only hint is the cost ($0.02), but there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without 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?

The description mentions the $0.01 cost, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements beyond the API key, or any other side effects. With no annotations, this 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 very short and functional, but it lacks important details, especially about parameters and usage. It is not overly verbose but it is also not sufficiently informative.

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

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

Given the simple parameter set and lack of output schema, the description should include at least an explanation of the API key and what the output looks like. It only mentions cost, leaving agents to guess about return data format.

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 does not mention the required 'api_key' parameter at all. The schema has no description for it either (0% coverage). The agent gets no guidance on what the API key is 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 clearly states the tool provides a stablecoin market overview including supply, dominance, and peg status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_global by focusing on stablecoins specifically.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_top or get_global. The description only defines what it does, not when to choose 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 a cost of $0.01, which is useful, but does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements beyond api_key, rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with many siblings, more behavioral context 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and cost. It lacks unnecessary detail, but misses important auxiliary 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete in stating the scope of data returned. However, given the large set of sibling tools, more context on how this summary differs from individual endpoints would improve completeness.

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

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

The only parameter, api_key, has 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the api_key represents or how to obtain it, adding no value beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 including prices, sentiment, global data, and top movers. It uses the verb 'overview' and resource 'market', which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_price_summary, which overlaps in purpose.

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 contexts where a single overview call is preferred over individual endpoints like get_price or get_social_sentiment.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions a cost ($0.02) but fails to disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. The agent is left in the dark about important runtime 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?

The description is short, but the inclusion of '$0.02' is somewhat extraneous and could be better placed elsewhere. The core information is front-loaded, but the structure is minimal.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the function returns. It only mentions 'analysis' without specifying format (list, percentages, etc.). The required parameters are not fully explained, leaving significant gaps.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameter meanings but does not. It does not explain what 'address' refers to (e.g., token contract address) or the role of 'api_key', leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose as analyzing token holder distribution from DEX data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which explicitly mention holders. However, the phrase 'analysis' is somewhat vague, lacking specifics on output format.

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 provides no context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without 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, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'no API key needed' which is useful, but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. The behavioral profile is minimal.

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

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

A single, short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core purpose. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and 40+ sibling tools, this description is extremely sparse. It does not explain return format, parameter usage, or how it differs from similar tools like get_top_gainers. Lacks critical context for an agent to use it 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 only 33% (only api_key has a description). The description adds no meaning to parameters like vs or limit; it does not explain that vs is the currency to compare against or that limit caps results. User must infer from 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?

Clearly states 'Top coins by market cap' – a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_price and get_coin with a unique scope. Also highlights 'no API key needed' which differentiates from tools that require authentication.

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. Among many sibling tools (e.g., get_top_gainers, get_trending), there is no indication of when to prefer this one. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that no API key is needed (auth behavior) but omits other traits like data freshness, rate limits, or what happens with default limit.

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: one short sentence with no wasted words. Easily scannable for AI agents.

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

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

Tool has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Description lacks details on return format, how 'gainers' is calculated, or error conditions. Incomplete for reliable agent 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (api_key described, limit not). Description adds no parameter details beyond 'no API key needed' for api_key. The 'limit' parameter lacks any explanation in both schema and 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 24h gainers and notes no API key needed. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_top' or 'get_top_losers', leaving ambiguity about what 'gainers' means exactly.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or context for using the 'limit' or 'api_key' parameters.

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 only discloses that no API key is needed, but fails to mention other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or what actions it performs.

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 wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and a key usage note.

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 the tool's simple nature, the description lacks details about the return format, sorting, or what constitutes a 'loser'. It is too minimal to be fully actionable.

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% (api_key has a description). The description clarifies that api_key is optional, adding some value. However, the limit parameter lacks any description beyond its default.

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 'Top 24h losers', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_top_gainers and get_top_volume.

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 'no API key needed', which is a usage note, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any 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 disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a cost of $0.01, which is a minor behavioral hint, but does not state idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or that it is a read operation. The 'get' prefix implies read-only, but this 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 very concise at 5 words plus the cost, but this brevity sacrifices clarity. Key information about parameters and usage is missing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but being too short reduces its overall utility.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response format or limit behavior. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete context to invoke 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%, yet the description provides no information about the 'limit' or 'api_key' parameters. It does not explain that 'limit' controls the number of coins returned or that 'api_key' is required for authentication. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 coins by 24h trading volume', specifying the resource and scope. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Retrieve', the tool name 'get_top_volume' conveys the action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_trending' or 'get_top_gainers' by focusing on volume.

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 siblings like 'get_top', 'get_top_gainers', or 'get_top_losers'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name 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?

With no annotations, the description only states it works without an API key. Essential behavioral details like rate limits, data freshness, pagination, or return format are missing.

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 with no wasted words. Every word earns its place by stating the resource and a key differentiator.

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 complexity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose but omits details on output structure and potential usage constraints, which could affect agent decision-making.

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 provides 100% coverage for the one parameter. The description adds value by clarifying no API key is needed, indicating the parameter is truly optional and not required for core functionality.

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, and explicitly notes no API key is needed, distinguishing it from tools that require authentication.

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 clear context: use when you need trending coins without an API key. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_meme_trending or trending_categories.

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?

Description adds the cost ($0.03) as behavioral info, but does not mention rate limits, required permissions, or what constitutes a 'large transaction'. Without annotations, more disclosure 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?

Description is concise with two sentences, but sacrifices important details. The first sentence states purpose, which is good, but the overall brevity leads to under-specification.

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 3 parameters, the description fails to cover return values, error handling, or parameter formats. Incomplete for effective tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain parameter purpose beyond their names. For example, 'address' is not clarified as the token address, and 'minValue' default of 100000 lacks unit context. No parameter-specific 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?

Description clearly states the tool tracks large transactions and whale movements for any token, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that might also track moves or transactions.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_price or get_token_holders. The description lacks context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool computes a correlation matrix and costs $0.03, but fails to mention if it is read-only, whether it requires an active subscription, or what the return format is. Important behavioral traits like rate limits or potential errors are absent.

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 one sentence, with no unnecessary words. The cost is appended efficiently. However, it could be structured into separate statements for clarity, such as explaining the 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose but lacks completeness. It does not explain the output format (a matrix) explicitly, nor does it clarify how the 'api_key' is used. The cost mention adds some context, but the agent may need more to properly invoke the tool without errors.

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 the description must compensate. It hints that 'days' corresponds to 'N' and 'coins' to 'top coins', but does not explain that 'coins' takes a comma-separated list or that 'api_key' is required for authentication. The default values are shown in the schema but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the tool's 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 the tool computes a correlation matrix between top coins over a specified number of days. The verb 'correlation matrix' and resource 'top coins' are specific, and the tool name 'market_correlation' aligns well. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'compare_coins' which likely perform different analyses.

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 like 'compare_coins' or 'get_price'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool preferable. The only hint is the cost mention, but no explicit usage guidelines.

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 cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'off-chain settlement with on-chain roadmap' and a $0.01 fee, but lacks critical information such as irreversibility, error states, latency, idempotency, or what happens if funds are insufficient. The description is insufficient for safe tool invocation.

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

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

The description is very concise, using a single sentence and two fragments. Every part adds some value, but the placement of 'Off-chain settlement...' and '$0.01' could be better integrated. Still, it is not verbose and front-loads the primary purpose.

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

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

Given no output schema, 3 required params including an undocumented 'api_key', and no annotations, the description fails to cover important context. It does not specify the sender's key, prerequisites (e.g., sufficient balance), expected return value, or error handling. The agent lacks enough information to use the tool confidently.

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 67% schema coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'api_key' parameter (missing from schema description) nor provide contextual details for 'amount' or 'to_key'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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'), the resource ('USDC credits'), the context ('from one agent to another on CryptoBoss'), and mentions a cost ('$0.01'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'check_agent_balance' and 'register', as none handle payments.

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 (e.g., check_balance first) or mention any prerequisites or restrictions. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the key is free, includes $1 credit, and requires no payment. However, it does not mention if registration is one-time, how the key is delivered, or any potential 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 with only two sentences, providing key information without any fluff or redundancy.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main outcome and value, though it could mention how the key is returned or if any further steps are needed.

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

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

The input schema is empty (0 parameters), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns (API key with credit). Since there are no params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description justifies that.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to obtain a free API key with $1 credit. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('free API key'), and it distinctly differentiates from all sibling tools, none of which involve registration.

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 tells when to use the tool (when needing an API key). It does not provide explicit when-not or alternatives, but given the unique nature of registration among siblings, this is sufficient.

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 present, so the description bears full responsibility. It vaguely states the alert notifies when the target is hit, but does not disclose if alerts are one-time or recurring, how to cancel, or any cost implications of '$0.01'.

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

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

The description is very short, but omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than concise. It front-loads the core action, but the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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

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

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is deeply incomplete. It does not cover alert lifecycle, retrieval, or the meaning of '$0.01', leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain 'api_key', 'condition', or the format of 'coin' and 'target'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Create price alert' and the trigger condition: 'notifies when coin hits target.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_alerts and delete_alert. However, the cryptic '$0.01' slightly detracts from 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, nor does it mention the condition parameter for above/below alerts. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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 discloses a cost of $0.01, but does not mention any other behavioral traits like read-only status, data access, or side effects. The disclosure is minimal.

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

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

The description is very short (one sentence), but it is under-specified. It lacks necessary details about parameters and behavior, so brevity comes at the cost of 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 no output schema and 2 parameters, the description should explain what is returned and how parameters affect results. It only mentions ranking by market cap change and cost, missing essential context for correct invocation.

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

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

Description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'api_key' parameters. With 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter usage.

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

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

The description clearly states it provides 'hot crypto categories ranked by market cap change', which is a specific verb+resource combination. The name 'trending_categories' aligns well, and there are no sibling tools with similar purpose, so no confusion.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context about when it's appropriate. The description is purely functional with no usage advice.

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