amanchain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It describes the content but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or without side effects, though 'status' suggests it. It also doesn't mention any error conditions or 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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main subject and then lists the key data points it provides. No redundant 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (schedule, daily spend, settlements). It lacks explicit notes on error handling or data format, but for a simple status query it is 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific information. The schema is empty and fully documented, satisfying the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 providing status information about the Autopilot keeper agent, detailing what it covers (schedule, daily spend, settlements). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other aspects like chain info 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?

The description implies the tool is for checking autopilot status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.

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?

There are no annotations for read-only or destructive behavior, so the description carries the full burden. The term 'info' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and listing metrics like 'height' and 'supply' reinforces that. However, the description does not explicitly state that the tool performs no state changes, which would be ideal given the absence of annotations. It also does not mention any potential rate limits, costs, or real-time guarantees beyond the word 'Live.'

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, compact sentence that lists all relevant output components. It avoids unnecessary detail, filler words, or complex structure. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose without wasting any tokens.

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 and zero parameters, the description is largely complete. It names the output fields and indicates the live nature of the data. It could be marginally improved by explicitly stating that it is the appropriate tool for network-wide metrics rather than individual records, but the lack of parameters and the clear list of outputs make it easy for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 there is nothing to add beyond the empty schema. The description correctly implies that no input is required, which aligns with the schema. Since the schema is fully covered by the empty parameter list, no additional explanation is needed, and the description adds value by hinting at the output scope.

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 providing live AmanChain network information, enumerating specific data points (height, difficulty, supply, burns, agent economy stats). Although no explicit verb like 'get' is used, the word 'info' unambiguously indicates a retrieval operation, and the list makes the purpose precise. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on transactions, services, or market 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 implies that this tool is used to fetch network-level metrics, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over sibling tools. For example, it does not mention that aman_get_tx should be used for individual transactions or that aman_price is for market data. Given the tool's zero parameters and singular focus, the absence of explicit alternative guidance is a minor gap, but the description is still self-explanatory enough for an agent to select it correctly in most cases.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that both mined and pending transactions are retrievable and that a fingerprint is included, which is useful. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The safety profile is implied but not stated.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core action ('Fetch a transaction by id') is front-loaded. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the tool name or schema.

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 single-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (the transaction plus fingerprint) and the scope (mined/pending). It doesn't elaborate on error cases or output structure, but these are not required given the simplicity and lack of output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It says 'by id' which clarifies that txId is the transaction identifier, but doesn't specify format, validation, or expected length. For a single string parameter, this is adequate but minimal—it barely compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a transaction by id') and adds two clarifying details: mined/pending status and quantum-shield fingerprint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aman_chain_info or aman_price, which are not about fetching 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?

The description implies usage (when you need transaction details by ID) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives. It doesn't state exclusions or conditions, so it meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks explicit routing.

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 describes the data content as recent paid calls, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose ordering, truncation, pagination, or rate considerations. Read-only behavior is only inferred from the tool name and the word 'history'.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core value ('recent x402 paid calls') and adds a meaningful framing metaphor ('the autonomous economy tape') without unnecessary detail.

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

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

For a zero-parameter read tool, invocation is trivially simple, and the description names the domain and content. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify the return shape, record fields, ordering, or result limits, so an agent must rely on heuristics to interpret the response.

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

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

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The 'recent' qualifier adds useful context about the implicit time window, and with no parameters nothing is missing.

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 resource: recent x402 paid calls between agents. It is distinguishable from siblings like aman_invoke_service (making calls) and aman_get_tx (single transaction lookup), but it lacks an explicit retrieval verb such as 'lists' or 'returns'.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'the autonomous economy tape' implies a monitoring/audit use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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 disclosure. It reveals that without payTxId it returns 402 payment requirements, with payTxId it verifies settlement and returns the result, and that node-operated services execute real computation. It does not cover error conditions, idempotency, or the cost implications of the paid service, leaving room for agent uncertainty.

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

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

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Call a paid agent service') and then efficiently explains the two operational modes. Every clause contributes essential information with no 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 tool's complexity (two-phase x402 protocol, paid execution, potential real computation) and the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior but omits prerequisites beyond serviceId (e.g., how to obtain payTxId from a payment step), error handling, and return format. It is sufficient for a basic call but not exhaustive for an agent facing edge cases.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for payTxId, explaining its role in the two-phase flow (without it returns 402, with it verifies settlement). It does not add much for 'request' or 'serviceId' beyond what the schema already states, but the payTxId explanation is a genuine value-add.

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 'Call' and the resource 'a paid agent service (AmanPay x402)', and it explains the two distinct invocation modes (with and without payTxId). It distinguishes itself from listing tools like aman_list_services by emphasizing execution and settlement verification, though it does not explicitly name any sibling as an alternative.

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

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

The description provides context on when to call the tool with or without payTxId, effectively covering two usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, nor does it mention that serviceId should come from aman_list_services (that is only in the schema). It gives no guidance on alternatives like aman_service_catalog or aman_invoke_history.

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 does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential side effects, or data source. Since there are no annotations to supplement, the description carries the full burden and fails to mention whether this operation modifies state or is purely informational.

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 directly conveys the tool's function. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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

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

Given the simple one-parameter, no-output-schema nature, the description provides adequate context about what the tool returns (a list of services with key attributes). It could be slightly more complete by hinting at the response format, but it is sufficiently informative for the tool's complexity.

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

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

The only parameter 'capability' is fully described in the schema with a clear example list, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed 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 lists the on-chain AI agent marketplace with service details like x402 price, provider, calls, and volume. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely named siblings such as aman_market or aman_service_catalog, which could lead to confusion about the unique 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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aman_service_catalog or aman_market. The description is purely declarative and does not mention any context or selection criteria beyond the inherent listing action.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Snapshot' implies a read-only view and the data contents are listed, but the description does not mention response format, freshness, limits, or whether this is a live vs cached view.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The core noun phrase 'DEX snapshot' is front-loaded and the data categories are enumerated efficiently.

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, the description is reasonably complete: it names the key data dimensions the agent can expect. It could be stronger with explicit notes about return shape or temporal scope, but the absence of parameters and output schema makes this mostly 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. The description adds meaningful context about what the snapshot contains, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 resource ('DEX snapshot') and the data it returns: pools, reserves, prices, volume, and swaps. It is fairly distinct from sibling tools like aman_price and aman_tokens, though it does not explicitly name those 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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as aman_price or aman_tokens. The implied use case is market-wide DEX data, but this is left to inference rather than 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a read-only price query and adds useful context about the data source ('deepest real AMM pool'). However, it does not describe the return format, freshness guarantees, or any limitations beyond the mention of TVL and 24h change.

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 states the core purpose first and adds supporting metrics. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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, no-output-schema informational endpoint, the description is largely complete: it names the output values (price, 24h change, TVL) and the source. It does not describe the exact response shape or units, but that is minor for such 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty schema already communicates. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly implies a no-input query with no missing parameter information.

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 (live AMAN price) and the specific metrics returned (24h change, TVL), making the tool's function evident. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aman_market or aman_token, but the focus on 'AMAN price' is distinctive enough.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (aman_market, aman_token, aman_tokens). The description implies it should be used when a current AMAN price is needed, but it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the contents of the returned catalog—pricing, request format, call stats, and payment flow—and 'discovery document' implies a read-only lookup. However, it never explicitly states that the tool has no side effects, how the result is structured, or what happens when the optional query is omitted.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence enumerating the catalog content and the second framing it as a discovery document. There is minor redundancy between 'for agents' and 'for machine agents', which keeps it from being perfectly tight.

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 catalog lookup with one optional parameter, the description covers the core content well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left to infer the response shape and the read-only nature of the call; a brief statement like 'returns the full catalog list; query is optional' would close that gap.

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

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

The input schema already documents the single optional 'query' parameter with examples like 'audit' and 'portfolio', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how filtering behaves, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states that this tool provides the complete x402 service catalog, including per-call prices in AMAN and USD, request format, call stats, and the payment flow. It is specific and substantive, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like aman_list_services or aman_market, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The phrase 'discovery document for machine agents' implies this is the starting point for agents to discover purchasable services and their prices. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as aman_list_services or aman_market, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or is subject to rate limits. The description only states what data is returned, not the behavior of the call.

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

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

The description is a single compact sentence that effectively conveys the tool's purpose and key data dimensions without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy 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?

The description lists the categories of information returned (supply, holders, etc.), which is sufficient for an agent to judge whether this tool fits a request. It lacks an output schema, but the enumerated data points provide a good sense of the response. Minor gaps like temporal scope or precision are not critical for tool selection.

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

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

The sole parameter 'symbol' is required and is described with an example ('e.g. USDT'). The tool description reinforces that the symbol identifies the token for which details are returned. While format specifics (case, network) are not detailed, the meaning is unambiguous for the common use case.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool provides AMT-20 token details and enumerates the specific data categories (supply, holders, stable collateral backing, pool depth, governance flags). It implies a 'get' operation without an explicit verb, but the scope is clear and distinct from sibling tools like aman_market or aman_price.

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

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the listed data categories implicitly indicate that it should be used when these specific token metrics are needed. Lacks direct guidance on selection criteria compared to 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool enumerates visible tokens and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention return format, pagination, permission requirements, or whether 'visible' includes network-created versus user-created tokens. This is adequate but minimal.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy 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?

For a simple, parameterless enumeration tool, the description states the resource and scope. However, it does not clarify how it relates to the sibling 'aman_token' tool, and with no output schema it leaves the response structure unspecified. The description is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies; the description correctly focuses on the result rather than inputs.

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 identifies a clear resource (AMT-20 tokens) and a clear scope (all visible on this network), implying a listing/read operation. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'aman_token', so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings, especially 'aman_token' (singular), which likely covers individual token details. The description provides no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual selection hints.

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