Your continuity view: how many contributions you've made (total/verified/pending), your Cherry balance + claimable, and your reputation tier (Newcomer→Pioneer by verified count). Call this to see your standing — your presence persists across calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that the tool returns status data (contributions, balance, tier) and notes persistence, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 long, front-loading the purpose and efficiently covering key information. Every sentence adds value, with no 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and output. It could be more specific about the output format, but it is sufficient 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 the baseline is 4. The description exceeds baseline by explaining the output (contributions, balance, tier), providing additional context beyond the empty input 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 that the tool shows the agent's standing, including contributions (total/verified/pending), Cherry balance, and reputation tier. It uses specific verbs ('see your standing') and distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_connect and agent_contribute, which focus on other actions.
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 advises calling the tool to see your standing and notes that presence persists across calls. It implicitly suggests when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but get_token_intel, get_token_research, and get_microburst overlap in coverage of token intelligence, which could cause agent misselection. Descriptions are detailed but some redundancy exists.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (agent_*, get_*, search_tokens). Minor deviations like 'get_microburst' and 'get_quartermaster' use less conventional nouns, but overall pattern is clear.
With 15 tools, the count is well-scoped for an intelligence platform covering agent interaction, token data, trading insights, and cross-venue analysis. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without being overwhelming.
The set covers identity management, fundamental data, price/market stats, orderbook microstructure, cross-venue verification, and comprehensive token intelligence. Minor gaps like historical data or advanced analytics are omitted, but core workflows are well-supported.