paired.exchange

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — a real-time snapshot ('right now'), per-stock granularity, and the fact that the mutation happens outside this tool — but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or whether results can be empty.

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-loaded with the payload ('creator fees a wallet can claim right now'). The second sentence is tangential to retrieval but earns its place by clarifying that claiming is out of scope for this tool.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and understand the return granularity ('per stock'). Minor gaps remain around the wallet format and empty-result behavior, but nothing critical 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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description implies the wallet is the subject of the query but gives no format, chain, or address-type guidance to compensate for the schema gap. Marginal value over the schema field name 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 names a specific resource (creator fees a wallet can claim) and a scope modifier ('right now, per stock'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like fee_schedule (fee rates) and get_coin (asset data). It is clear what is returned without opening the schema, though it never explicitly names an alternative sibling.

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 sentence 'Claiming is one transaction on the portfolio page' implicitly routes the agent: this tool only reads claimable amounts, while the actual claim happens elsewhere. However, it never states when to prefer this over a sibling or any exclusions, so usage is only implied rather than 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and external-reach profile. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — the values are read live from the contract rather than cached — but says nothing about which contract/chain, error behavior, or freshness beyond '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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three returned values with zero waste. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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-only query with no output schema, the description identifies the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. It would be stronger if it scoped which contract (the openWorldHint leaves the target unspecified), but it is close to 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 takes no parameters, so per the baseline rule parameter semantics start at 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for and nothing it omits.

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 the exact data returned — launch fee, swap fee, and creator share of swap fees — with a specific verb ('read live from the contract'). It is clear, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling claimable_fees, which an agent could easily confuse with this fee-reading tool.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With claimable_fees sitting in the sibling list, the absence of any routing signal is a real gap.

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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful disclosure of what is returned (price, curve, raised amounts, creator, launch origin), but with no output schema it omits any mention of error behavior for an unknown address or data freshness.

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 opening with 'One coin:' then listing the payload. Dense and essentially waste-free, though it reads as a sprawling fragment rather than a structured statement.

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 the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does list the main fields. However, the ambiguity of the address parameter and the absence of any behavioral notes leave the definition only minimally sufficient for the call.

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 single required parameter 'address' is never referenced in the description. It is unclear whether this is a token contract address, a launch address, or a chain-qualified identifier, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 clearly frames a single-entity lookup and enumerates the returned content: price, curve per paired market, amount raised, creator, and launch origin. It contrasts implicitly with the plural list_coins sibling via 'One coin'. It stops short of an explicit verb, but the resource and scope are 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a known address), and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the address-keyed variant versus list_coins or list_markets entirely on its own.

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 establish this is a safe, read-only operation against an open world, so the description's burden is lighter. It usefully discloses the return shape (signed flag, then coin address and links), but says nothing about behavior before signing, error cases, or latency.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering both the primary answer and the conditional payload, with no filler. The trailing clause 'once it has' is slightly clipped but not wasteful.

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, the description must carry return semantics, and it does name the key fields returned. However, it leaves out the unsigned/error path and treats the sole input as self-evident, which is thin for a status-lookup 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 never mentions draft_id, so the only information an agent has is the parameter name and its string type. It does not explain what a draft is, where the id comes from, or what happens with an invalid id.

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?

States a specific resource (a planned launch) and what is reported about it (signed status, plus coin address and links once signed). It is clear enough to separate from plan_launch or get_coin, though it never names those siblings or their boundaries explicitly.

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 'planned launch' implies this is a follow-up to plan_launch, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement (e.g., a draft_id must already exist), and no exclusion against alternatives like get_coin or list_coins.

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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context (results are ordered newest first and include stock pairings), but it never mentions pagination even though limit/offset exist, which matters for a list tool returning an open-world dataset.

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 zero filler, and the core result shape (coins + stock pairings, newest first) is front-loaded ahead of the optional filters.

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, the description does helpfully sketch the return shape (stock pairings) and default ordering. But for a list endpoint with limit/offset, the absence of any pagination note leaves a real gap an agent would hit in practice.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies from_assistant and market, but limit and offset receive no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States the resource (launched coins), the ordering (newest first), and the returned enrichment (stock pairings), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not name the sibling it could be confused with (get_coin for a single coin), so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 via its two optional filters ('only coins launched from an assistant, or only coins in one market'), which tells the agent when to narrow results. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_coin or list_markets, and no 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the entries are market pairs tied to Robinhood Chain, but says nothing about freshness, ordering, or completeness of the returned set.

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 with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument listing tool, though the phrasing is slightly descriptive rather than directive.

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 no parameters, the description's job is to characterize the returned data, which it does (market pairs plus their token addresses on a named chain). It is nearly complete for a simple read-list tool, with only the shape/ordering of results left unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly introduces no phantom 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 states a specific resource (the tokenized stocks a coin can be paired against) and adds a notable detail (token addresses on Robinhood Chain), which makes it distinguishable from siblings like list_coins or get_coin. It reads as a noun phrase describing the return value rather than an explicit verb+resource, but the intent 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the tool for enumerating tradable market pairs, but nothing states the condition that selects it over list_coins or quote_trade.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the crucial workflow trait: the user signs and pays the fee from their own wallet at the returned link, and this tool performs no deployment or spending. That resolves the apparent tension with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. It does not state whether a plan record persists, expires, or how long the link is valid.

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 the core action front-loaded and the safety constraint immediately after. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is redundant.

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 an 11-parameter mutate-ish tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is far from complete: the agent has no idea what markets/weights must contain or how dev_buy interacts with the launch. The behavioral framing is good but the invocation surface is essentially undocumented.

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 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden but says nothing about any of them — markets, weights, dev_buy, fee_wallet, image_url, socials are all unexplained. 'Launch fee' is the only faint connection to fee_wallet, so it adds almost no semantic value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Validate a new coin and return a launch link'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_coin, list_coins and launch_status. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, so it falls just 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?

Usage is implied by the domain verb 'plan/launch' and the sentence clarifies the tool never deploys or spends, which sets expectations about a non-committal step. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or sibling routing guidance (e.g., versus launch_status or claimable_fees).

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, so the agent knows this does not mutate state; the description reinforces that by framing it as a quote 'before committing'. Beyond that it adds nothing behavioral — no indication of what the quote returns, whether it expires, or any rate/ownership constraints. With the safety profile already carried by annotations, this is a minimum-viable 3.

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 zero filler, front-loading the core action before the semantic clarification. Every clause 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?

For a 4-parameter trading tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is thin. It does not explain the return payload (a price/quote), the role of amount/address/market, or any constraints, so an agent is under-informed about how to call and interpret it.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies the 'side' enum ('a buy spends the stock; a sell spends the coin'). The three other parameters — amount, address, and market — receive no explanation, and even 'side' is described in symbolic terms rather than as a spending-currency notion tied to the enums.

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 and resource ('Price a buy or sell against one of a coin's stock markets'), which is clearly distinct from the read-only informational siblings (list_coins, get_coin, list_markets, fee_schedule). It also adds a purpose qualifier ('before committing') that clarifies this is a preview step. No sibling is explicitly named, but none is close enough to require 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?

The phrase 'before committing' implies the tool is used as a pre-execution quote, which is useful implied timing guidance. However, it never states prerequisites (e.g., required auth/address ownership) or explicitly contrasts this with any alternative action, leaving the 'when' to inference.

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