tech-risk

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects: network (Base mainnet), inclusion of USD price, multi-provider JSON-RPC, and cost per call. Missing details like error handling or rate limits, but sufficient for a simple read operation.

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-loading the core function, then adding cost info. 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 the simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, network, and cost. It could specify return units (e.g., wei vs ETH) for completeness, but overall 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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'address', which is described as a '0x-prefixed 20-byte Base address'. The tool description adds no further meaning, so baseline 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 it returns 'Native ETH balance of a Base mainnet address, incl. balance_usd', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like chain_token_balance.

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 mentions cost and multi-provider usage but does not explicitly guide when to use vs alternatives (e.g., chain_token_balance) or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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?

Discloses multi-provider failover, never fails on rate limit, and cost per call. Full behavioral disclosure given no 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 concise sentences that front-load the key purpose and behavior with 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?

Does not describe the return value (e.g., numeric block number), but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor 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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description need not add parameter info, 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?

Explicitly states it returns the current block number on Base mainnet via multi-provider JSON-RPC, clearly distinguishing from siblings like chain_block_number_preview.

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?

Describes the scenario (getting current block number) and mentions failover behavior, 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is a free sample and identical to the paid version, but lacks details on rate limits, latency, or response format. Basic behavioral context is given.

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 all essential information with no wasted words. It is optimally concise for its purpose.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and relationship to the paid sibling. However, it does not specify the return value format, which could cause uncertainty for an agent.

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 description adds no parameter info. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 params. The schema already covers everything, and the description does not detract.

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 explicitly states the tool provides a free live sample of the current Base mainnet block number, identical to the paid chain_block_number tool. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings and specifies the resource and verb.

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 mentions it is free and identical to the paid tool, implying its use for cost-free testing or sampling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative scenarios.

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 full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.005 USDC per call) and data source (multi-provider JSON-RPC), but does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or caching behavior.

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 wasted words. Key information (outputs, cost, data source) is front-loaded.

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?

While the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description does not specify the exact JSON response structure, which could help an agent parse the result 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by detailing the output fields (wei/gwei, base_fee_gwei, priority_fee_gwei, gas_price_usd) and the cross-call mechanism.

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 specifies the tool retrieves current Base mainnet gas prices in multiple units (wei/gwei, EIP-1559 fees, USD price) via multi-provider JSON-RPC, distinguishing it from preview 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 mentions cost and differentiation from ETH-only competitors, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like chain_gas_price_preview or other gas price 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'identical data to the paid chain_gas_price tool', which is transparent about the output quality. It also clarifies the free nature. Missing details like rate limits or call constraints, but the simplicity of the tool (0 params) reduces the need. A minor gap prevents a 5.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with 'FREE live sample' to immediately convey key information. Every word serves a purpose without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward function (return gas price), the description fully satisfies contextual needs. It explains what the tool does, how it relates to the paid sibling, and its cost model. No missing information for an agent to select and invoke it 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information, which is entirely appropriate since no parameters exist. No additional value needed beyond the schema coverage.

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 provides a 'live sample of the current Base mainnet gas price' with the verb 'sample', specifying the resource (gas price) and network (Base mainnet). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'chain_gas_price' by highlighting it's free and a preview, making the purpose 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 description explicitly says 'FREE live sample' and 'No payment required', and mentions the paid counterpart 'chain_gas_price', which implies when to use this preview version. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides cost ($0.005 per call), caching per token contract, and the inclusion of symbol/decimals/formatted balance. It does not cover failure modes but is transparent about significant behaviors.

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 wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and key features (network, return fields, caching), and the second states cost. Every piece of information 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers main purpose, cost, and caching. It hints at return format. Missing edge case behavior (e.g., invalid address) but acceptable for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already clear. The description reinforces the ERC-20 context and adds return field information but does not add significant semantic detail beyond 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 clearly states it retrieves the ERC-20 token balance for a Base mainnet address, including symbol, decimals, and formatted balance. This distinguishes it from siblings like chain_balance which returns native balance.

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 specifies the network (Base mainnet) and mentions the cost, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context of ERC-20 tokens is implicit differentiation.

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 and does meaningful work: it enumerates the bundled checks (honeypot/sellability simulation, owner-renounced, mint/pause/blacklist/fee-setter/proxy checks, Uniswap v3 WETH liquidity) and discloses the payment/auth requirement ('$0.01 USDC per call via x402'). It omits rate limits or any note on data freshness, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then the output verdict, then the bundled checks and cost. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but every clause carries information an agent needs (verdict vocabulary, risk scale, payment model).

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 exists, yet the description specifies the return shape (verdict enum, 0-100 risk_score, reasons, liquidity in USD) and the cost model. For a single-param read tool with no annotations, that covers what an agent needs to invoke and interpret it 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 coverage is 100% for the single 'token' parameter, so the schema already documents the 0x address format. The description only reinforces the chain constraint ('Base ERC-20'), adding little beyond structured data — the baseline 3 for a well-covered single-param 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Token security check (honeypot detector + rug-pull risk score) for a Base ERC-20') and even names the deliverable ('SAFE | CAUTION | AVOID plus risk_score'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling chain_token_security (and the *_preview variants), leaving ambiguity about which contract-security tool to pick.

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?

'Replaces many RPC calls and prevents a bad trade' implies the use case (pre-trade safety screening) but never states explicitly when to call this versus chain_token_security or the preview siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given, so usage is inferred 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 full burden, and it does disclose the two behaviors that matter most here: zero cost ('No payment required', 'FREE') and output parity with the paid tool ('same depth'). It omits rate limits, caching, or freshness of the data, so it is strong but not complete.

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 the value proposition (FREE) leading and the differentiation from the paid sibling following. 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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover scope, cost, and result shape; it covers scope (Base USDC), cost (free), and result shape (SAFE/CAUTION/AVOID verdict, same depth as paid). Only freshness/latency and exact response fields remain unstated, which are minor for a no-param read 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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates usefully by fixing the implicit argument — the report is scoped to Base USDC — telling the agent what it will get without passing anything.

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 ('full real trade-safety report ... verdict') for a specific asset (Base USDC), and explicitly names the sibling paid tool chain_token_report it mirrors. An agent can distinguish it from chain_token_security and chain_token_report without opening a schema.

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?

Makes the selection condition clear: it is the FREE, no-payment-required counterpart to chain_token_report with the same depth, so an agent knows to prefer it when cost matters. It stops short of stating when the paid tool would be required instead.

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?

Describes detailed checks (proxy, bytecode, renouncement, simulation), returns risk_score/verdict/flags, and notes cost. No annotations provided, so description carries burden well. Lacks error handling details.

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?

Packed with information but well-structured: purpose, checks, output, cost. Not overly verbose, each sentence adds 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?

Given complexity and no output schema, description covers key aspects: checks, return types, cost. Missing exact output format but sufficient for an agent.

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 100% and description does not add new meaning beyond '0x-prefixed 20-byte ERC-20 contract address on Base mainnet'. Adequate but no extra 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?

Clearly states it is a token security/honeypot detector for Base mainnet ERC-20 with specific checks. Distinguishes from sibling 'chain_token_security_preview' by emphasizing real compute and cost.

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?

Mentions cost and that it's non-trivial compute, implying use when serious analysis is needed. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like the preview, but provides clear 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions it's free and same depth as paid, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or what happens if the input is not Base WETH. Minimal transparency.

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 that are efficient and front-loaded with essential information: free, fixed token, same depth as paid, and alternative for arbitrary tokens. 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality of a preview tool, the description is adequate. It explains what it does and how it differs from the paid tool. Could mention that it only works for Base WETH, but that is already clear.

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?

No parameters in the input schema, so baseline is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info. The description correctly indicates no parameters 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?

Clearly states it provides a free full security analysis for a fixed token (Base WETH) using the same depth as the paid tool. Distinguishes itself from sibling 'chain_token_security' by specifying the token is fixed and free.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (free preview of Base WETH) and when to use the paid tool (arbitrary tokens). Also mentions 'No payment required' and that it's a preview to see the real product before paying.

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 alone must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the cost ($0.005 per call) and the provider mechanism (multi-provider JSON-RPC). However, it does not mention read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or response format. The cost disclosure is valuable, but other aspects are 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 extremely concise: two sentences, each serving a purpose (what the tool does, and its cost). No filler words. Information is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 should hint at what 'details' means, but it does not. For a single-parameter read tool, this is adequate but leaves the agent uncertain about the returned structure. Cost and chain info are helpful, but completeness is only moderate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a clear description ('0x-prefixed 32-byte transaction hash'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 the tool retrieves transaction details by hash on Base mainnet, using multi-provider JSON-RPC. This is a specific verb+resource pair, and among sibling tools like chain_balance (balance queries) and chain_block_number (block queries), this tool is distinct.

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 for transaction hash lookups but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., preview tools cost less but may have different data). No guidance on when not to use 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the call is paid ($0.005 USDC via x402) and the USD value requires a cross-call to an ETH price source. It also flags EIP-7702 delegated-EOA awareness, an edge case that affects the contract check. It does not cover failure modes, latency, or caching.

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?

Purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, with cost isolated in a short second sentence. The parenthetical clauses are dense but each carries real information (cross-call pricing, EIP-7702 awareness) rather than 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return content, and it does by listing the four bundled signals by name. An agent knows what it gets and what it pays. Missing are error behavior and any note on the output shape/units beyond the enumerated fields.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the address format. The description adds the Base mainnet scoping ('for a Base mainnet address'), which slightly narrows the schema's 'Base address' note but is largely redundant. Baseline 3 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Wallet screening bundle') and enumerates exactly what it returns: ETH balance, balance_usd, tx count, and a contract-vs-EOA code check. The 'in one call' framing implicitly separates it from single-purpose siblings such as chain_balance and chain_tx without needing them named.

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 bundle framing ('in one call') implies the tool should be chosen when an agent wants all four signals at once, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no sibling is named as the alternative for single-field lookups. Usage is inferable but not 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 covers key behavioral traits: cost per call, venue inclusion/exclusion logic, that Hyperliquid is always present, ordering, and data fields. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the x402 cost indicates payment.

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 informative, listing all returned fields. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be improved with bullet points for readability.

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 complexity of multiple venues and many fields, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and includes important context like cost and omission logic. However, it does not clarify whether results cover multiple coins or a single coin; it implies multiple but could be more explicit.

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 already describes the single parameter 'limit' with default and max. The description adds no additional meaning or context for this parameter, so it scores at the baseline of 3 for 100% schema coverage.

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 provides live cross-venue perpetual-futures funding rates from specific exchanges, listing fields and ranking by volume. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'crypto_funding_preview', which likely provides a 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?

The description implies usage for live full-rate data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the preview sibling or other tools. No guidance on prerequisites or 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?

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool is free and provides only 1 item, but does not explicitly state it's read-only or what behavior to expect. No mention of destructive actions, but none expected.

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 concise sentences with no waste. 'FREE 1-item sample of live cross-venue funding rates. No payment required.' Front-loaded key information.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It explains what it does and its free/sample nature. Complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (trivially). Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline 4 for zero params.

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 provides a free 1-item sample of live cross-venue funding rates. It distinguishes itself from the full crypto_funding tool by being a preview/sample, and uses specific verb 'sample' and resource 'funding rates'.

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?

Implies usage for getting a free sample without payment. The context signals and sibling list suggest crypto_funding is the full version, so the preview is for testing or quick previews. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned.

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 burden. It discloses the cost model and source, but omits behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, error handling for invalid IDs, or explanation of the 'confidence' field. The cost disclosure is valuable, but overall transparency is moderate.

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 efficiently conveys purpose and cost. No unnecessary words, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing fields separately) could improve readability.

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 tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description is functional but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the return format or provide an example call. The tool's simplicity reduces the need for extensive detail, but the description could still be more helpful.

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% with the 'coins' param well-documented. The description adds marginal value by restating 'CoinGecko ids' but doesn't elaborate on default behavior or format beyond what the schema already provides. 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 it provides live spot token prices with specific fields (price, change_24h, etc.) for CoinGecko IDs from DefiLlama. While it distinguishes the tool as a full prices tool, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'crypto_prices_preview', missing an opportunity to clarify when to use each.

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 mentions the cost ($0.005 per call) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crypto_prices_preview'. No exclusions or context for optimal use are given, leaving the agent to guess.

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 bears full responsibility. It discloses the tool provides a free sample of 1 item, which is a key behavioral trait (limited to 1 token). It doesn't mention caching or data freshness, but the core limitation is clear.

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 of 8 words, very concise. Every word adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing what is sampled). Still efficient and front-loaded.

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, the description should explain the return format or what 'live token prices' means. It doesn't specify which tokens are sampled or the output structure. For a tool with no parameters, this is a gap. Partially 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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no param detail but doesn't need to.

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 provides a 'FREE 1-item sample of live token prices.' The verb 'sample' and object 'token prices' are specific. It distinguishes from the sibling 'crypto_prices' by being a preview/free sample, so purpose is well-defined.

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 mentions 'FREE' and 'No payment required,' guiding usage for cost-free testing. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the preview nature implies it's for exploration. Clear context for usage.

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 full burden. It discloses the source, cost, and many output fields (APY breakdown, IL risk, outlier flag, etc.), giving good behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature 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?

The description is dense and somewhat run-on, packing many details into a single sentence. While all information is relevant, it lacks clear structure and could be more concise and better organized.

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 complexity (5 parameters, rich output), the description is quite comprehensive, covering data fields, cost, and ranking logic. However, it does not describe output structure (e.g., list of pools) or pagination behavior, which would improve completeness.

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% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds significant context beyond schema, such as the meaning of 'risk_adjusted' sort (apy/sigma) and default sort order. It also explains output fields that help interpret parameter effects.

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 explicitly states it provides live DeFi lending/LP yield pools from DefiLlama, listing specific data fields. It distinguishes from the sibling 'defi_yields_preview' by including cost and full details.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'defi_yields_preview' or other crypto tools. It only implies sorting options but lacks when-not-to-use or comparative 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'FREE' and 'no payment required' which is good, but does not disclose what the sample contains or any limits. For a simple tool with no parameters, it is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that convey the essence without any fluff. Every word 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description sufficiently communicates the tool's purpose as a free preview. It could mention the output format but is largely complete for its scope.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has nothing to add. With zero parameters, baseline is 4.

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 is a free sample of live DeFi yield pools, with the verb 'sample' indicating a preview. This effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'defi_yields' which would provide full 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'defi_yields', but the word 'preview' in the name and 'sample' in the description imply it is for testing or exploration before using the full version.

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 and does well by disclosing concrete behaviors: RDAP lookup, DNS records, subdomain enumeration, certificate transparency, tech fingerprint, and a verdict based on domain age. It also transparently states the cost. Missing details like output format and error handling prevent a perfect score.

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 reasonably concise but packs a long list of features into a single dense sentence, followed by a pricing caveat that is somewhat tangential. It is not poorly structured, but the mix of functionality and cost makes it less streamlined.

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 enumerates many enrichment components, giving a good sense of capabilities. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return structure, and it lacks usage context or relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps for a complex 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 schema has one parameter, 'domain', with zero description coverage. The description only repeats 'for a domain' without adding any format, normalization, or constraints, so it fails to clarify the expected input beyond the parameter name.

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 comprehensive domain enrichment service, listing specific data sources (RDAP, DNS, subdomain enumeration, CT history, tech-stack) and a verdict. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool 'enrich_tech_risk', 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enrich_tech_risk. The only comparative instruction is about payment gate versus a direct HTTP endpoint, which is cost guidance rather than 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It adds valuable context like the cost ($0.005 USDC per call) and the specific enrichment steps. Yet it does not state read-only nature, side effects, or failure conditions, so transparency 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 concise sentences, with the core functionality front-loaded and cost neatly appended. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 core capabilities and even hints at the output verdict, but with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on return structure, parameter prerequisites, and error scenarios. It is minimally viable 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 compensate. It only mentions 'a domain', giving some meaning to the 'domain' parameter, but the 'techstack' array parameter is completely underexplained. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 specifies the tool's purpose with a strong verb ('enrich'), a target resource ('a domain'), and distinct outputs (tech-stack fingerprint, CVE mapping, EPSS, CISA KEV, verdict). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like enrich_domain by focusing on technical security risk.

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 clear context that this tool is for security/tech-risk enrichment of a domain, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusionary conditions, so it stops short of a top score.

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 behavioral load and does disclose meaningful traits: the exact analysis scope (honeypot/sellability + admin-control + liquidity), the payment mechanism and cost ($0.01 USDC per call via x402), and the return shape (one decision + reason). It does not state that it is read-only and never executes the swap, nor any auth/error behavior.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the decision purpose and the checks, with cost placed last. 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?

For a 3-parameter gate tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, checks, cost, and the single-decision return. The main remaining gap is explicit statement that the tool does not execute trades and how failures are reported.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only weakly echoes trade size ("vs. your trade size") and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (gate / GO-HOLD-BLOCK decision) and resource (Base ERC-20 swap) and enumerates the checks performed: honeypot/sellability, admin-control, and Uniswap v3 liquidity vs. trade size. It is clearly not a generic security scanner, though it does not explicitly name a sibling like chain_token_security to differentiate from.

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?

"Pre-trade" implies when to use it (before executing a swap), and the cost line tells the agent each call is paid. However, no explicit when-not condition or alternative tool is named, so usage is only 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the no-payment/no-auth trait and that it is a 'live' sample returning a GO/HOLD/BLOCK decision, but says nothing about rate limits, whether results are deterministic, or the exact meaning of 'sample'.

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 with the FREE/preview framing front-loaded. 'No payment required' is somewhat redundant with 'FREE,' which keeps it just short of ideal conciseness.

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 3-param preview tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (a GO/HOLD/BLOCK decision 'same shape as gate_swap') and the payment context, but leaves the actual return structure undescribed since it only references the sibling.

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 schema already documents all three parameters and their enums/defaults. The description adds only the context that tokens are 'demo Base' tokens and repeats the enum values, so baseline 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 names a specific resource (the gate_swap pre-trade GO/HOLD/BLOCK decision) and clearly frames this as a free preview variant, distinguishing it from the sibling gate_swap. It is clear what the tool returns, though the core 'action' is described as producing a sample rather than a crisply stated verb.

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 signals the free/no-payment context and 'same shape as the paid gate_swap tool,' which implies when to reach for this over gate_swap, but it never explicitly states the selection condition or when NOT to use it. Usage is left to inference from the FREE/no-payment framing.

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. It discloses the $0.005 per call cost and the data fields, but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or idempotency. For a read-only data tool, the transparency is moderate.

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 front-loads purpose and lists key fields efficiently. It is somewhat dense but contains no fluff. Could benefit from slight restructuring for readability, but overall concise.

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 absence of an output schema, the description comprehensively lists all returned fields. It covers cost and ordering. However, it does not describe the JSON structure or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps for a complex 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (limit and query). The ranking by volume24hr is implied default ordering, not a parameter.

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 explicitly states it provides 'Live Polymarket prediction-market data' and lists specific fields (outcomes, prices, volume, etc.), clearly differentiating from siblings like pm_markets_preview. The verb 'provides' and resource 'Polymarket prediction-market data' are specific.

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 for live market data and mentions cost, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., pm_markets_preview). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are 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 effectively communicates that this is a free, read-only preview returning a single sample. No hidden behaviors are indicated.

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 concise sentences with no waste, front-loading the key point 'FREE top-1 sample'.

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 or annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and free nature. Could be slightly improved by hinting at output format.

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 no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool does without needing parameter 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 provides a free top-1 sample of live Polymarket prediction markets ranked by volume24hr, distinct from the sibling pm_markets 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?

The description mentions 'FREE' and 'no payment required,' implying it's a preview, but fails to explicitly state when to use this instead of pm_markets or other 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 fully discloses behavioral traits: it returns only issue count, severity breakdown, risk score, and verdict, but NOT which tools or evidence. Also mentions it's free and requires no payment, implying no destructive side effects.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adding value: purpose, return details, limitations, and usage guidance. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does, what it returns (and does not return), and when to use the paid sibling. Fully adequate 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?

Only one parameter 'url' with 100% schema coverage. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema (e.g., 'free preview-scan'), but the schema itself is clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the parameter semantics are already well-defined.

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?

Explicitly states it's a free preview scan for tool-poisoning/prompt-injection on MCP servers. Clearly distinguishes from the paid scan_mcp_server sibling by specifying it returns only summary stats, not detailed findings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use this free preview first; if issues found, call paid scan_mcp_server for itemized findings and remediation. This clarifies when to use this tool vs the paid alternative.

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 and does it well: it explains the fetch-then-static-analyze behavior, the return shape (findings, 0-100 risk score, verdict), and the payment requirement (x402, $0.005 USDC). It omits edge cases such as unreachable targets or timeouts, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then layers analysis categories, return values, and cost. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical OWASP codes and dual-pricing clause add some load for marginal benefit.

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 correctly compensates by explaining the return values (findings + risk score + verdict). The single input is documented in the schema, and the payment model is disclosed, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Only one parameter (url) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents its meaning fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, warranting 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?

States a specific verb (Security-audit) and resource (target MCP server) with a scope enumeration: prompt-injection/tool-poisoning plus the five static analysis categories. An agent immediately knows this is a security-scanning tool, distinguishing it from the chain_*/crypto_*/defi_* siblings.

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?

Pricing context (x402 at $0.005/scan vs. $0.05 HTTP variant) implies a cost-based selection condition, but it never states when to choose this over the obvious sibling scan_mcp_preview or names any alternative. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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