AgentFeed

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the cost ($0.001 USDC per call) and the Solana mainnet execution, but does not mention rate limits, caching, or response format. This is moderate transparency for a simple read-only tool.

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 functionality (live BTC/USD spot price with CI) and adding cost/network context efficiently. 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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (price with confidence interval) and cost, but does not specify the response structure or whether the price is updated in real-time. Adequate but could be more precise.

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 no parameters (0 params), so the description cannot add parameter-level details. Baseline is 4 per instructions. No additional information needed.

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 the live BTC/USD spot price with a confidence interval, specifying the source as the Pyth oracle. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_sol_price or get_funding_rate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_market_snapshot or pricing. It mentions cost but lacks context for selection.

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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or whether the index is real-time or historical. The word 'Free' hints at no cost but is insufficient for 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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. Every word is essential, and there is no superfluous content. It is front-loaded with the core 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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of context. It states the return value (index and classification) but omits details like output format (e.g., JSON structure) or whether the classification includes labels. While adequate for a simple tool, it could be more 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?

There are no parameters, so the description adds no parameter information. With 100% schema coverage on an empty schema, the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets this criterion without needing to elaborate.

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's purpose: it retrieves the Crypto Fear & Greed index with a value range (0-100) and classification. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_btc_price or get_funding_rate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states 'Free,' which does not help an agent decide contextually. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are given.

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 the description must carry full behavioral burden. It adds value by disclosing cost ($0.002 USDC per call) and context (x402, Solana mainnet, Hyperliquid). This helps the agent understand side effects and requirements.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the tool's output, then cost context. Highly efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return elements (funding rates, mark prices, open interest). However, it lacks specifics like data format or units, which could be inferred.

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 schema, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but the baseline is 4 since no parameters exist.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides 'current SOL and BTC perp funding rates, mark prices, open interest (Hyperliquid)'. The verb is implied and the resource is specific. It differentiates from siblings like get_btc_price and get_sol_price which only give spot prices.

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?

While the description implies usage for obtaining perp funding data, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_market_snapshot. 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses monetary cost per call, a key behavioral trait. Does not mention other behaviors like rate limits or idempotency, but cost transparency is valuable.

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, front-loaded with function then cost. No redundant words, clearly structured.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs (1h/24h totals, split, biggest print). Missing output format details, but still sufficient for an agent to understand what it returns.

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%. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description adds no parameter info because none needed.

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?

Description clearly states it aggregates SOL+BTC liquidation data with specific metrics (1h/24h totals, longs vs shorts USD split, biggest print), distinguishing it from siblings like get_recent_liquidations or get_btc_price.

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

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

Implies use when needing aggregated SOL/BTC liquidation stats, and mentions cost ($0.004 per call) which guides careful usage. Does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but context from siblings is available.

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, but the description discloses cost ($0.003 USDC per call) and network (x402, Solana mainnet), which are key behavioral traits. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the scope is limited.

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: first states the output, second adds cost and network context. No redundant 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately specifies what data is returned. It could mention data freshness, but the current detail is sufficient for a simple 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?

Input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds value by explaining the output composition (prices, rates, index) beyond the empty 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 provides SOL and BTC prices, funding rates, and Fear & Greed in one call, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve individual data points.

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 use when multiple data points are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. However, the 'in one call' phrasing suggests efficiency for combined data.

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 key behavioral traits: monetary cost ($0.004 per call), data source (Bybit), and implementation (x402 on Solana mainnet). It also states the data scope (long/short ratio, OI with changes).

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: first describes the data output, second adds cost and implementation. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, front-loaded with key 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its cost. Could optionally mention return format or units, but not essential for a data 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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter information but does not 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 SOL+BTC positioning data including long/short account ratio and open interest with changes, specifying the source (Bybit). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_btc_price or get_sol_price which focus on price alone.

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 use for retail crowding and OI data for SOL and BTC, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. However, the specificity of the data makes the context clear.

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 reveals the cost ($0.003 USDC per call) and network (Solana mainnet), which are critical behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only data retrieval, this is adequate.

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?

Single sentence with all essential information: purpose, data fields, filterability, and cost. Every part is 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 covers source (Bybit), asset pairs, data fields, and cost. It could mention data recency or retention, but it's sufficiently complete for a real-time data 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 the schema already explains parameters (limit, symbol, min_usd). The description adds no new parametric detail beyond 'Filterable', 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 the verb 'get' and resource 'recent liquidations' for SOL/BTC perp from Bybit, listing specific data fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_liquidation_stats' (aggregated stats) and 'get_market_snapshot' (broader market data).

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

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

The description mentions 'Filterable' hinting at parameter usage but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the oracle source, cost, and that the price is live. However, it lacks details on confidence interval interpretation, rate limits, or error behavior. Moderate 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, each adding value: first states what it does, second adds cost and network. 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function. It mentions price, source, cost, and network. Could elaborate on the confidence interval format, but acceptable.

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 no properties, so there are no parameters to explain. The description adds no param info, which is fine since schema coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline for zero parameters 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 that the tool retrieves the live SOL/USD spot price with confidence interval from the Pyth oracle. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_btc_price by specifying the asset (SOL) and oracle source.

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 on when to use the tool (for SOL/USD price) and includes cost information ($0.001 USDC per call) and network (Solana mainnet). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or 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 the data source (Helius DAS) and cost, but does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or whether the token must exist. For a read-only metadata lookup, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral detail (cost). No redundant 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?

Given the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what data is returned (name, symbol, decimals, supply, price), the source (Helius DAS), and cost. It could mention error handling or output format, but is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a well-described parameter (mint address in base58). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without elevating.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns SPL token metadata (name, symbol, decimals, supply, price) via Helius DAS. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_btc_price or get_sol_price by focusing specifically on SPL tokens.

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 cost information ($0.005 USDC per call) which helps in deciding economic feasibility, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_market_snapshot or get_wallet_holdings. The context implies use for SPL token metadata queries.

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 carries full burden. Discloses cost, network, and method (x402). Lacks details on rate limits or side effects, but adequate for a read-only data tool.

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, efficient and front-loaded with key purpose and constraints. 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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema), description covers purpose, constraints, and cost. Could mention return format but not necessary.

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% (single parameter mint with type and format). Description adds no extra semantics beyond what schema provides, 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?

Description clearly states it provides 'rug-risk signals' for SPL tokens, listing specific factors (mint/freeze authority, holder concentration, risk flags). Distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_fear_greed, get_market_snapshot) by being token-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?

Explicitly says 'Not a honeypot/LP-lock checker', guiding agents when not to use it. Also mentions cost ($0.01 USDC per call) and network (Solana mainnet). No explicit alternatives but the negation helps.

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 carries full burden. It discloses cost ($0.01 USDC per call) and protocol (x402, Solana mainnet), which are critical for agent decision-making. No destructive behavior mentioned; likely read-only.

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. First sentence immediately states purpose and contents; second adds cost. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 or output schema, description adequately lists the data included. Minor lack of return format details, but not critical for a simple aggregation tool. Could be slightly more complete but sufficient.

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

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

No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Description adds no param info because none are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns 'full market state' including specific data points (SOL+BTC prices, funding, Fear & Greed, etc.). Verb 'get' with 'trade context' plus enumeration of contents makes purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve individual metrics.

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 tool as 'the complete pre-trade picture' implying it is for comprehensive market overview. While it implicitly guides away from using when only a single metric is needed (siblings exist), it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use.

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

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

The description discloses the per-call cost ($0.008) and the underlying data source (Helius DAS), which adds value beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations provided, it does not cover other behavioral traits like rate limits, idempotency, or error conditions, leaving gaps.

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: the first explains the output, the second adds cost context. No redundant or unnecessary words, and the key information 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main output types and cost. It lacks mention of error handling or that a valid wallet address is required, but overall completeness is high 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?

The input schema already describes the single parameter (wallet as a base58 string) with 100% coverage. The description does not add further details about the parameter, so 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 returns Solana wallet holdings including native SOL, SPL tokens with USD values, and NFT count. The verb 'get' is implicit from the tool name, and the resource is specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sol_price or get_fear_greed.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as that the wallet must be valid or that the tool is read-only, nor does it list scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions it is 'Free'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or the exact nature of the output, though it is 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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

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

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details about the output structure (e.g., whether it returns tool names, prices, or both). A more thorough description would clarify the return 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to document.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists all agentfeed tools with USDC prices, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('agentfeed tools'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that target individual prices.

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 getting an overview of all tools with USDC prices, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. specific price tools like get_btc_price or when not to use it.

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