gblin-treasury-risk-regime

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

Given annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, the description adds value by clarifying the data source (self-observation, v0), the frequency (every 10 minutes), and the sealing mechanism (EAS attestation on Base). This goes beyond mere reputation and provides useful behavioral context.

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

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

The description is concise at about 40 words, with all information relevant. It front-loads the core purpose (tallies) and then adds necessary detail. No wasted words.

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

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

The description is sufficient for a zero-parameter, read-only report with annotations and an output schema. It explains the data source, frequency, and sealing, but could offer a bit more on the exact contents of the report (e.g., what fields are included). However, given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, so this is adequate.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Since there are no params, the description's job is to set expectations, and it does so by describing what is included in the report. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description compensates for the lack of param details.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting kept/violated tallies for GBLIN's hash-pinned promises, with details on how data is collected (every 10 minutes) and sealed (EAS attestation on Base). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on tallies and attestation, 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?

The description implies its use for checking compliance tallies and notes that it is self-observation only in v0, which gives context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It could benefit from mentioning that this is for read-only reporting, but the self-observation note provides some guidance.

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

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the output is plain text and lists contents, but it does not disclose any limitations, rate limits, or output details beyond what the annotations already convey.

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 is front-loaded with the core resource name and format, followed by a compact, useful list of contents. There is no redundant wording.

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

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

Given no parameters, an output schema, and simple annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a protocol information fetch. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which may still be inferred.

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

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

With zero parameters and an empty input schema, the description carries the full semantic burden and does so by indicating exactly what kind of data will be returned. No parameter-level documentation is needed.

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

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

The description clearly states that protocol.info returns 'GBLIN llms.txt as plain text' and lists its contents: contract addresses, endpoints, prices, payment flow, and field contract of the attestation. This identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like protocol.stats and receipts.get, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve'.

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

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

The description implies use when protocol-level information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. For a simple zero-parameter read, this is adequate but not fully explicit.

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

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

Annotations already flag read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add non-obvious context. It adds 'Cached 5 min' (stale data window) and 'methodology disclosure', which are useful beyond structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Two short sentences front-load the counters and add only the cache and methodology caveats. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations are rich, and no parameters require explanation. The description covers data scope, freshness via 'Cached 5 min', and methodology disclosure. This is complete for a no-input stats tool.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully self-describing with additionalProperties false. The description therefore does not need to explain inputs. Baseline 4 applies.

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 opens with 'Cumulative public counters of GBLIN's x402 endpoints' and enumerates paid calls, unique payer wallets, USDC earned, and methodology disclosure. This clearly identifies the tool as an aggregate stats endpoint, distinct from receipt/risk/info siblings. The metric scope is 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?

The 'cumulative public counters' phrasing and 'Cached 5 min' note establish when this tool is appropriate: for aggregate, quick, read-only metrics. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no exclusions are needed for a zero-parameter stats endpoint. The context is clear enough for selection among siblings like receipts.get.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond those hints: it discloses that the receipt is re-signed with a fresh inclusion proof, explains why re-signing yields deterministic output ('Ed25519 is deterministic'), notes the response includes the current signed checkpoint and latest on-chain anchor, and states it is free. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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

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

The description is one dense sentence plus 'Free.', with the core resource (receipt from the log) front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place — re-signing, inclusion proof, checkpoint, anchor — and the parenthetical on Ed25519 determinism explains a non-obvious property. Slightly telegraphic, but appropriately sized with essentially no waste.

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

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

The tool is simple (one required parameter, fully described in schema), has an output schema so return format need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description enriches this with the response contents and cost. Missing only minor context like rate limits or what GBLIN's log is, which are not necessary 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 100%: the 'index' parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Receipt index in the log (0-based; current size at GET /log/checkpoint)'). Per the baseline for high schema coverage, the description need not repeat parameter details; its 'Receipt #index' phrasing aligns with the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics, but none are required.

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 resource precisely — a receipt from GBLIN's receipts log — and enumerates what is returned (re-signed receipt, inclusion proof, signed checkpoint, on-chain anchor). The annotation title 'Get a receipt by index' supplies the explicit verb. It is clear what the tool does, though the description itself reads as a noun phrase and does not explicitly contrast with the related siblings receipts.seal and receipts.verify.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like receipts.seal and receipts.verify are functionally adjacent, but the description never says 'use this to fetch an existing receipt; use receipts.verify to check one' or any exclusion. Nothing is misleading, but the agent is left to infer the usage context.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: fields are published publicly, secrets must not be included, provenance is self-reported, demo receipts are marked demo:true, and unspecified fields are ignored. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential information: core behavior, mode constraints, alternative endpoint, provenance caveat, privacy warning, and ignored-field behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and return 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?

The description is complete for a tool with this complexity: it explains the mutated state (public log append), the receipt contents, rate limits, alternative paid access, and privacy implications. An output schema exists, so detailed return-field documentation is not required here.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by emphasizing that action/agent_id/tool/meta are published, that only identifiers should be used, and that unlisted fields are ignored and not recorded.

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 a specific verb+resource: appends hashes to a transparency log and returns a portable receipt. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like receipts.get and receipts.verify by describing creation/publication rather than retrieval or verification.

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

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

It explicitly states that demo is the only mode over MCP, gives the rate limit, and points to the paid x402 endpoint for unlimited seals. It does not explicitly describe when to choose this over sibling receipt tools, but the creation vs. retrieval/verification distinction is strongly implied.

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?

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it performs verification without log lookups (i.e., no server-side state), equivalent to an offline script, and does not perform on-chain anchor checks (pointing to another endpoint). This transparency about what the tool does and does not do goes beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is two sentences of substantive content plus a third sentence pointing to an alternative. It front-loads the purpose, lists specific checks, and includes a clear pointer to related functionality. No filler or redundancy—every sentence 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?

The tool is cryptographically complex, but the description covers its core behavior, the exact checks, the lack of trust assumptions, and references an offline script for reproducibility. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The pointer to the alternative endpoint fills the only gap (on-chain consistency). This is fully complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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

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

The schema describes the single parameter 'receipt' with its expected format (bare or wrapped in {receipt}) and sources. The description adds the version specifier 'gblin-receipt/v1' and clarifies it's JSON, but these are minor additions. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides modest extra value, warranting a 4 rather than the baseline 3.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Verify' and identifies the exact resource: 'a gblin-receipt/v1 JSON'. It enumerates the specific checks performed (leaf hash, Ed25519 signature, RFC 6962 inclusion proof, etc.), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like receipts.seal or receipts.get. The phrase 'pure math (no log lookup, no trust in this server)' differentiates it further from trust-based checks.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to verify a receipt with pure math and no trust in the server. It also provides an alternative for a different need: 'For the extra on-chain-anchor consistency check use GET /v1/verify/:index.' This gives clear context and exclusions, making the usage boundaries obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the sample is static, permanently expired, and schema-compatible with the paid attestation, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core identity and state of the resource, then gives a direct use-case instruction.

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

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

With no parameters, supportive annotations, and an output schema present, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the sample is, its constraints, and how to use it. Nothing essential is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no parameter documentation. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing the description needs to compensate for.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a static, permanently expired sample of the signed Risk Attestation, with the same fields and EIP-712 schema as the paid version. It states a specific purpose (building/testing a parser/verifier) and distinguishes the sample from the paid attestation.

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 explicitly says to use the tool to build and test a parser/verifier, which is clear usage guidance. It also notes the sample is permanently expired, implying it is not for production or current attestation data, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'read live', '60s cache', 'free and unsigned', and the existence of a signed paid endpoint. This discloses data freshness and auth/security nuances without contradicting the readOnlyHint.

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 tight sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and source; the second covers licensing/caching/alternative. No filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what, where, how fresh, and what alternatives exist. Nothing is 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter info and appropriately focuses elsewhere.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns the current BTC/ETH risk regime (calm | elevated | crash) with a suggested posture, and specifies the source (GBLIN's on-chain Crash Shield on Base). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like risk.attestation_sample.

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

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

It provides clear context about the free, live endpoint vs. a paid signed alternative, implying when to use each. However, it could be more explicit about when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when offline verification is needed).

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