Industrial Platform Market Data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait — the $0.001 USDC payment on Base via x402 — but leaves "recurring" undefined (subscription vs. repeated call), and says nothing about cadence, return format, or any auth/rate constraints.

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 with no waste; the core capability is front-loaded and the cost note is appended compactly.

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 one-param data tool with full schema coverage this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the description should explain what a response looks like, and "recurring" plus the x402 payment flow remain unexplained — meaningful gaps for a paid streaming-style endpoint.

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 has 100% schema description coverage (product_id with a pattern and examples), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 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 names a specific resource (best-bid/best-ask market data) and a purpose (execution and spread monitoring), so an agent knows this returns top-of-book quotes. It stops short of a clear action verb and, notably, does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling crypto-top-of-book.

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?

"For autonomous execution and spread monitoring" implies the intended context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like crypto-top-of-book or crypto-market-snapshot that appear to overlap.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses a critical trait: 'Costs $0.005 USDC on Base via x402.' However, it omits other key behavioral details such as read-only nature, rate limits, payment requirements per call, 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then cost. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler, though it could be slightly more structured by hinting at key parameters or output.

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

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

For a paid data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and cost but omits usage guidance, sibling differentiation, parameter context, and return format. An agent would need to infer much from the schema alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 80%, which is high. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. Parameters like product_id, granularity, and time range are fully documented in 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 a specific data type and purpose: 'Recurring OHLCV candle data for trading, indicators and market monitoring.' It clearly identifies the resource (OHLCV candles) but does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings such as canonical-crypto-ohlcv or crypto-recent-trades.

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 broad use cases ('trading, indicators and market monitoring') but no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like canonical-crypto-ohlcv or crypto-24h-stats. There are no exclusions or conditions for use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context — the tool is paid ($0.001 USDC on Base via x402), which is a real invocation prerequisite an agent must know. Beyond that it says nothing about rate limits, freshness guarantees, caching, or failure behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the cost detail. Minor redundancy between "recurring" and "realtime" and the "autonomous trading and monitoring" clause keeps it from a perfect score.

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

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

For a one-parameter lookup this is nearly complete on the invocation side, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a result looks like (a scalar price? a pair with timestamp?), nor what happens on an unknown product_id or an unpaid call. Those gaps matter for an agent parsing 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 single product_id parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including format examples (BTC-USD, ETH-USDC) and a pattern. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 for well-covered schemas 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 names a specific verb and resource ("crypto price lookup"), so an agent immediately knows this returns a price. However, it offers no differentiation from the many close siblings such as canonical-crypto-spot-price, crypto-price, crypto-market-snapshot, or crypto-24h-stats, and the modifier "recurring" is ambiguous for what reads like a single-shot lookup.

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?

"for autonomous trading and monitoring" implies a usage context but never states when to choose this over the dozens of adjacent price/market tools. There is no when-not-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites beyond the cost line, leaving routing 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. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait the schema cannot express: a per-call cost of $0.008 USDC on Base via x402, which implies a paid endpoint and wallet flow. However, it says nothing about freshness, polling cadence for a 'recurring' snapshot, 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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the purpose leads before the cost disclosure. Slightly cryptic wording ('Recurring bundled') but nothing wasted.

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

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

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only prose available, yet it omits parameter meaning, return shape, and any usage boundaries. The cost disclosure is helpful but far from sufficient for a four-parameter, payment-gated 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 there are four parameters, including a patterned product_id, a bounded trade_limit, a bounded candle_limit, and a candle_granularity enum. The description adds no meaning for any of them, so an agent must infer units, defaults, and the product_id format entirely from the JSON 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?

Names the resource (crypto market snapshot) and a modifier ('bundled', 'recurring'), but never defines what the bundle contains or what the verb is (fetch? poll?). With siblings like crypto-market-snapshot, crypto-candles, and crypto-recent-trades present, 'bundled' is the only differentiator and it is left unexplained.

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?

Says the tool is 'for autonomous trading and market-monitoring loops', which is a target audience rather than a when-to-use rule. No exclusions, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer this over crypto-market-snapshot or crypto-candles.

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