AgentData — crypto market data with a checkable record

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does not. It does not explain whether the tool triggers payment, returns historical or live data, imposes rate limits, or what the $0.005 USDC value actually represents. The parenthetical phrase is too ambiguous to be considered transparent 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?

The description is extremely short and contains no filler, frontloading the exchange list and threshold. However, its brevity borders on under-specification; it skips useful structuring such as what is returned. As concise phrasing alone, it earns full marks for economy, but not for informativeness, which caps it at a 4.

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 minimal parameters and the rich payment flow is already captured in the parameter schema, which helps completeness. But there is no output schema and the description does not indicate the shape or count of returned opportunities, nor clarify the '0.005 USDC' as a filter or fee. Given the missing output semantics and the debut gate of the payment parameter, a minimum-viable score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The single payment parameter is fully described in the input schema with a detailed explanation of the x402 flow, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, only the ambiguous '$0.005 USDC' note, which may or may not relate to payment cost. The parameter semantics are adequate because the schema description coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline.

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

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

The description names the resource (cross-exchange spreads) and scopes it to four exchanges, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so it reads as a fragment rather than a clear statement of functionality. It also adds an ambiguous parenthetical '($0.005 USDC)' that could mean a fee threshold, a minimum spread, or something else, which clouds the purpose. It is distinguishable from many sibling tools by the 'arbitrage' scope, but the sentence itself does not confidently say what the agent will get.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as get_crypto_prices or get_funding_rates. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, nor when not to use it. The only context is the exchange list, which implies scope but not selection logic.

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 disclosure burden. It does disclose the $0.015 USDC cost and the unique data provenance, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, error behavior, or what happens when the payment parameter is omitted beyond what the schema already states.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the essential facts (time range, frequency, venues, cost) and then adds a meaningful uniqueness statement. Every part contributes 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only data retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers the data content, time span, frequency, exchanges, cost, and why the data is valuable. The main gap is the absence of an output schema explanation, but the input schema already handles the only parameter, so an agent can still invoke the tool 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 100%, so the single optional payment parameter is already fully documented. The description adds the cost amount and context about why this data is unique, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource: 30 days of hourly cross-exchange spreads across four named venues, with an explicit cost. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_arbitrage_opportunities and get_crypto_prices by specifying historical spread data rather than current opportunities or single-venue 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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or competing sibling tools. The uniqueness statement ('nobody archives the spread between them') implies value, but it does not provide practical usage guidance.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost ('$0.003 USDC') but does not explain the payment flow, whether repeat calls are needed, response behavior, or any other operational details that would help an agent anticipate what happens when invoking it.

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 very short and front-loaded, putting the metric first. It wastes no words and conveys its main function in one line, though the trailing cost in parentheses is slightly cryptic.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the caller can expect in return. It only says 'TPS + block activity' without clarifying the exact shape, units, or freshness. The payment call-and-sign pattern is also not mentioned in the description, despite being important for actual 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?

The schema already covers the only parameter, payment, with a detailed explanation of the Base64 payload and signing flow. The description adds the cost amount, which is useful, but does compensate or expand much 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 states the specific resource ('Base network') and the metrics it returns ('TPS + block activity'). This distinguishes it from other get_* sibling tools that target different data like gas prices or funding rates. It lacks a verb, but the tool name and content make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 such as get_market_overview or get_gas_prices. The description only defines what data it returns, not under what circumstances an agent should select it.

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?

Even with no annotations, the description carries its weight: it discloses server-side cursor state keyed to the wallet, that it prevents re-downloading/re-diffing, and that the first call returns the last 24h. It leaves some behavior around payment requirements implicit, but the schema's payment parameter description covers that flow.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core value and differential are in the first sentence. The phrase 'Requires signal=' is a bit clipped, but no sentence is wasted and the description also lands key pricing and behavior facts.

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 annotations and no output schema, and the description does not describe the response shape or list expected return fields. This leaves an agent unsure what 'changes' looks like. The how and why of polling are well covered, but given no output schema, a little more on the returned data structure would be needed for full 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by revealing the cost of the payment payload, wallet-keyed state, and the 24h initial time window, which helps an agent understand the payment parameter's purpose and how the signal cursor behaves.

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

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

The description states a specific verb+resource: return only what changed for a given signal since this wallet last paid for it. It clearly differentiates from the many get_* sibling snapshot tools by calling itself a delta endpoint that is 'cheaper than any full payload' and a replacement for repeated polling.

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 explains when to use the tool: when you need incremental changes rather than a full payload, and as a replacement for repeated polling. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state 'use get_<signal> for full data', but the contrast is clear enough.

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 main burden. It contains only the output type and price, not the payment-gating behavior, the need for an initial call without payment to receive signing requirements, or any computation or return semantics. The useful payment flow is relegated to the parameter description.

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 about eight words and front-loads the core output before appending the cost. There is no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and no redundant schema 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?

The description names the output and timeframe and the schema handles the payment parameter, which is enough for basic selection and invocation. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of which assets are covered or how the correlation matrix is shaped, the description leaves meaningful inference to the 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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional payment parameter, and that description already explains signing, forwarding, and the initial unpaid call. The free-form tool description contributes no parameter semantics, so the 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 names a specific, unique artifact: a 30-day price correlation matrix, plus its cost. It distinguishes itself from the sibling price and technical tools, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'computes' or 'returns', so it is clear rather than fully action-oriented.

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

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

There is no guidance on when this should be preferred over alternatives like get_technical_indicators or get_historical, and no statement of the use case, such as detecting co-moving assets. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'price correlation matrix.'

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 burden, and it adds a few behavioral clues: the data is real-time and there is a $0.002 USDC charge. However, the payment requirement and the call-without-payment-first behavior are expressed only implicitly or in the schema, not clearly explained in the tool description itself.

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 very short and front-loads the core value. The parenthetical cost note is ambiguous, so conciseness is achieved at some cost to clarity.

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

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

For a one-parameter paid API with no output schema, the description is thin. It states the asset coverage and real-time nature, but does not mention the response format, the unit of returned prices, the payment flow, or the relationship to try_crypto_prices. The schema covers the payment payload, but the description does not fully contextualize the calling experience.

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 documents the payment parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds at least a cost clue ($0.002 USDC) beyond the schema, providing useful context for how payment should be configured, though the connection is not made explicit.

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 returns real-time prices for a specific, named set of assets (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP), which makes its core purpose identifiable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling try_crypto_prices or other pricing tools, so it misses full differentiation.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of try_crypto_prices, get_market_overview, or get_historical. The parenthetical $0.002 USDC hints at a paid call but does not explain the required two-step payment flow or when the free/no-payment call should be made.

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 more responsibility. It does add the important behavioral fact that the call costs $0.003 USDC and names the covered protocols. It does not describe the payment handshake or result semantics, but the payment parameter already documents that workflow.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core subject and protocols before the cost. It is telegraphic and lacks a verb phrase, but every fragment carries useful information 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: an agent can identify the resource, protocols, and cost. It is not fully self-contained because details like the sort criteria for 'top' and exactly what metric is returned are left implicit, but the schema fills in the payment interaction.

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%, and the single 'payment' parameter is fully documented with its x402/ERC-3009 flow and first-call behavior. The description adds the cost amount and protocol list, but does not materially explain the parameter 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 names a distinct deliverable—top DeFi yields—and constrains it to Aave, Compound, Morpho, and Pendle, which is enough to separate it from pricing or funding-rate siblings. It relies on the tool's 'get' prefix for the verb, but the resource and protocol scope are unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to select this tool over the many sibling tools or when to avoid it. The protocol names imply the domain, but there are no exclusions, alternatives, or triggers such as 'when the user asks about lending APY'.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It hints at a $0.005 USDC cost but does not state that payment is required, that the call needs to be attempted once to receive payment requirements, or whether the operation is purely 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loads the core purpose immediately. The parenthetical cost note is compact, and there is no wordy filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 alone is too sparse for safe selection and invocation: it does not describe what the actual output will be, that this is a paid call requiring a signed payment payload, or how the first call without payment should be handled. The schema covers the payment argument, but the overall context is still insufficient without annotations or an output schema.

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% description coverage, and the single payment parameter is already well explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level insight, which is acceptable given the baseline for complete 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 names a specific resource and action: a DEX vs CEX price comparison. It is distinct enough from sibling tools such as get_crypto_prices or get_market_overview, which cover broader or less differentiated pricing 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 implies when to use the tool: whenever DEX and CEX prices need to be compared. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives might be more appropriate for broader price monitoring.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It does disclose the key dimensions 'latest + 30-day history' and a cost of $0.005 USDC. However, it does not state whether a signed x402 payment payload is required, what the output shape looks like, or whether the tool is fully 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?

The description is one compact sentence with the data, units, lookback, and cost presented in a sensible order. Every word contributes to understanding or invoking the tool, with no filler or repetition.

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

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

For a single-parameter, paid data endpoint this is nearly complete: metric, units, asset universe, time span, and price are all present. The remaining gap is that no output response shape is described, and the signed-payment precondition is only evident from the schema, not from the tool description itself.

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

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

The single payment parameter is already fully described in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic value beyond the schema by explicit billing the cost: $0.005 USDC, which an agent cannot infer from the payment parameter description alone.

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

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

The description names a concrete resource: BTC & ETH ETF daily net flows, measured in USD millions, with a 30-day lookback. It also labels those flows as institutional demand, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices, get_funding_rates, or get_sentiment.

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

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

The phrase 'institutional demand' provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: users investigating ETF-driven institutional flows in BTC and ETH. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is specific enough that an agent can route properly without deeper sibling comparison.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a cost ($0.015 USDC) and the scoring methodology (predictions vs observed rates over 30 days), which is useful. It does not mention response format, payment-flow behavior, or side effects beyond the fee, so disclosure is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence conveys purpose, time window, and cost without filler. The key scoping phrase ('scored against the rates observed afterwards, over 30 days') 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not state what the returned accuracy data looks like (metrics, format, granularity). It also relies on the input schema to explain the payment flow, so an agent cannot fully anticipate response or behavior from the description alone.

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

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

The schema already documents the payment parameter fully, including the call-without-payment flow and security property, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only cost context and does not elaborate on the parameter, matching the baseline of 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?

The phrase 'Track record of our funding predictions scored against the rates observed afterwards' clearly identifies the tool as an accuracy-reporting endpoint for funding predictions over a 30-day window. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_funding_predictions and get_funding_rates, though the nominal form 'track record' lacks an explicit 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 implies the tool is for checking past prediction accuracy against realized rates, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over similar siblings such as get_signal_calibration or get_signal_history_30d. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving usage to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the $0.003 USDC payment requirement, the x402/ERC-3009 payload workflow, and a key property: the server forwards the payload and never holds a key. It does not describe return-value shape, but the payment and auth behavior is clearly surfaced.

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 packs the essential facts into a single, efficient sentence: asset set, exchange, output focus, and price. It does not waste tokens or repeat schema detail. Every part 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 one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description and schema together provide enough context for an agent to bootstrap a call: first unpaid to get requirements, then paid with the signed payload. The only notable gap is that the return format is not detailed, but the description does hint at settlement-time output.

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 description coverage is 100%; the payment parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the two-call flow and what to sign. Since the description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, 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 states a clear resource—predicted next funding rate for BTC/ETH/SOL on MEXC—and adds a useful qualifier 'with time to settlement,' which helps distinguish it from the sibling get_funding_rates. It lacks a direct action verb like 'get' or 'fetch,' but the tool name and context make the operation evident.

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 gives the core usage context but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the very similar sibling get_funding_rates. The payment workflow in the input schema provides actionable calling guidance, but top-level usage alternatives are left to inference.

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

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

The description discloses the cost ($0.002 USDC), but does not state the payment-gated behavior: that the first call should be made without payment to receive requirements, that the second call must include signed payment, or what the resolver does with the payload. Without annotations, the description leaves an important gate for a human caller entirely implicit; the crucial details live in the input schema instead.

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 definition is spare in the best way: one short sentence, front-loaded with the core resource ('perpetual funding rates') and the expected signals, and then a single cost qualifier. No filler or repetition.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with the payment flow fully documented in the schema, the overall definition covers everything essential to invoke it correctly: what data is returned, what the long/short signal aspect is, and how the payment argument works. It only misses a short relationships to try_funding_rates, which would improve routing but is not required to know.

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 the single payment parameter already has a rich description covering the base64 x402 payload, ERC-3009 URI, the two-step signing flow, and the fact that the server never holds the key. The description's price mention adds economical context, but no new 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 identifies a specific resource in a clear noun phrase: perpetual funding rates with long/short signals. It still lacks an explicit verb, but it is appropriately distinguishable from siblings like get_funding_predictions because it targets rates rather than predictions.

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

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

There is no 'when to use this vs alternatives' guidance. It does not mention try_funding_rates as a trial/preview option, nor fund predictions as a related but different signal. The only procedural guidance is embedded in the parameter schema, which is about payment flow, not tool 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, safety, and payment behavior. The '$0.002 USDC' parenthetical hints at a fee, but does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only, what the server does, or what happens on failure.

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 very short with minimal waste, but the parenthetical '$0.002 USDC' is ambiguous: it could be a fee, an output value, or a display format. It is compact but not as structurally clear as it could be.

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 single optional parameter is well documented in the schema, which helps, but the main description omits return-value shape and payment/workflow context. No output schema exists, so the description should say more about what the caller receives.

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%, and the optional payment parameter is thoroughly documented in the input schema, including the x402 flow and the no-key-held guarantee. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the 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 identifies the domain: multi-chain gas prices across Base, ETH, and SOL. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'fetches'.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It merely labels the data domain, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and the sibling list.

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 responsibility for behavioral context. It does disclose that the tool costs $0.010 USDC, which is a meaningful behavioral trait about payment requirements. However, it does not mention the two-step payment flow (call first, receive requirements, sign and call again) described in the schema, nor does it state any rate limits or side effects. The payment workflow is available in the parameter description, so the marginal behavioral disclosure is above baseline but incomplete.

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 and front-loads the essential purpose and price in a single readable phrase. There is no wasted text. It loses a point because it is almost too sparse, providing no structural context such as a short sentence about typical invocation, though conciseness itself is strong.

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 this tool has no output schema, no annotations, sparse parameter descriptions, and many sibling data tools, the one-line description leaves important gaps. An agent cannot tell how the returned candles are structured, whether the payment is per-request or per-candle, or how to distinguish this from similar market data retrievers. The two-step payment detail is in the schema, but the overall description does not make the tool self-sufficient especially without an output schema.

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 only 25% (only the payment parameter has a description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining interval, symbol, or limit, though the enum and defaults in the schema provide some hint. Given the low coverage, the description should have connected the params like interval/symbol to OHLCV semantics, but it simply does not.

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 'Historical OHLCV candles' clearly identifies the resource and the data type returned, and alongside the tool name 'get_historical' it is easy for an agent to infer this fetches past candlestick data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_crypto_prices or get_funding_rates by naming a concrete, unique object type (OHLCV candles). It loses a point because the description is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-driven sentence saying 'get' or 'fetch'.

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 given about when to use this tool compared to sibling tools such as get_crypto_prices, get_technical_indicators, or get_signal_history_*. The description does not state any context, exclusions, or alternatives. The word 'historical' implies it is for past data, but this is left to inference rather than explicit direction.

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 explaining behavioral expectations. It hints at cost with '$0.003 USDC' and labels the result as 'estimated', but it does not disclose the paid x402 flow, the need to call once without payment, or whether this operation spends funds before returning data.

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 compact and front-loaded: it names the subject, the scope, and the price with no wasted words. The parenthetical cost is terse but effectively communicates the paid aspect.

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 is conceptually simple and has only one optional parameter, but the description omits the underlying asset or outcome format and leaves the payment authorization flow entirely to the schema. It is minimally viable but an agent might not know the tool requires payment before a meaningful response, or what shape the estimated liquidation zones take.

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%, and the payment parameter's own description thoroughly documents the handshake and security properties. The main description adds little beyond the '$0.003 USDC' pricing hint, so it provides no extra parameter meaning on top of a strong 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 specifically states the resource ('liquidation zones') and the key dimension ('by leverage 5x/10x/20x'), which meaningfully expands on the tool name. It does not explicitly include a verb like 'returns' or 'gets', and it does not distinguish it from get_support_resistance or other price-level 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites described. The description's mention of specific leverage levels implies a use case, but it never states a decision rule or 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?

There are no annotations, so the description itself carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a fee/trending cost of $0.003 USDC, which is useful, and the schema separately discloses the payment flow and key handling. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects payments have, or how the returned data behaves.

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 and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It uses a terse list effectively, though the parenthetical 'trending ($0.003 USDC)' is ambiguous and could be clearer.

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 output schema and one optional payment parameter, the description lists the expected data categories well. Still, it lacks usage guidance, no explicit output shape, and leaves the meaning of 'trending ($0.003 USDC)' unresolved, especially against a large sibling set with overlapping macro/on-chain tools.

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 payment parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds the contextual cost figure, but it does not explain the parameter mechanics beyond what the schema provides. 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 identifies the resource as macro & on-chain context and enumerates its concrete content: stablecoin supply, BTC/ETH dominance, Fear & Greed, BTC network fundamentals. It avoids tautology, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like get_stablecoin_health or get_market_overview.

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 content list implies when the tool is relevant, namely when an agent needs macro or on-chain context. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings and provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that a payment of $0.003 USDC is required, which is useful, but it does not tell the agent that the first call without payment returns payment requirements rather than the overview, nor does it describe what a successful response looks like.

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 packs the resource, content, and cost into about ten words with no filler. The word 'full' is slightly vague, and the abbreviation 'arb signals' may not be immediately understood, but overall the text is efficient and earns its place.

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

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

For an endpoint with just one optional parameter fully documented in the schema, the definition is almost adequate. However, with no output schema, the description says only that the agent will get a 'full market overview' without any sense of the response shape or how the returned data is structured; it also fails to flag the unusual two-step pay-then-call flow.

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 only parameter 'payment' is already described in the schema with 100% coverage: Base64 x402 payload, ERC-3009 TransferWithAuthorization, USDC on Base, plus the two-call flow, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the specific fee ($0.003 USDC), information the schema does not carry, which helps the agent judge the financial implication of the payment.

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

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

States the resource (market overview) and its key contents (sentiment + arbitrage signals), with a clear price tag. It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not contrast with get_market_pulse, which could plausibly be the same kind of aggregate view.

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 given about when to use this tool rather than get_market_pulse, get_sentiment, or get_arbitrage_opportunities. With 29 get_* siblings, an agent must guess which one fits the task, since the description only says what it returns, not why it is the right choice.

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 partially discloses a significant behavioral trait: this tool requires a payment of $0.018 USDC and makes a single settlement. However, it does not explain the two-step payment flow (call without payment to get requirements), what happens on a failed payment, or any other side effects. The parameter schema fills some gaps, but the main description still does not give a complete behavioral picture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the key value (price and '8 signals in one call') and supported by a compact list of the signals. It is structured well for scanning, though the long list of signal names makes it slightly dense.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how payment works. It lists the eight signals and the one-payment behavior, which is helpful, but it does not describe success/error responses, call flow steps, or whether the first call without the payment parameter returns requirements. The parameter schema compensates partially, but completeness remains 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 schema coverage for the single 'payment' parameter is 100%, with a detailed description covering the Base64 payload and ERC-3009 flow. The description adds extra meaning by specifying the exact price ($0.018 USDC), which is useful and not present in the schema, helping the agent understand the payment amount and context.

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 communicates that this tool is a bundle of 8 specific market signals, listing them precisely. It distinguishes itself from the sibling signal-specific tools (e.g., get_sentiment, get_volatility), but it lacks a strong explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get,' relying on the tool name for the action.

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 of this tool when multiple of the eight listed signals are needed, comparing the cost and settlement count with buying separately. It does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer single-signal tools, but the cost comparison gives clear context for choosing this bundle over the individual siblings.

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 disclosure burden. It reveals a $0.015 USDC cost, one-settlement billing behavior, and stateful wallet-scoped 'recorded changes,' which are useful behavioral traits. The exact x402 payment flow is delegated to the parameter schema, which is acceptable given the small parameter surface.

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 dense sentence that packs price, contents, wallet scope, and billing behavior without filler. The long parenthetical list is slightly hard to scan, but every element earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with one optional parameter, a thorough parameter schema, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and how it is billed. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the enumerated components make the response expectation sufficiently 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?

The only parameter, payment, is fully described in the input schema (Base64 x402 payload, ERC-3009, USDC on Base, call-once flow), so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the already-stated single-settlement model.

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

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

The description names the resource (overnight risk brief) and enumerates its specific components: DEX-vs-CEX spreads, liquidation zones, funding predictions, sentiment, stablecoin health, and wallet-scoped recorded changes. This clearly distinguishes it from the individual sibling tools and communicates what the agent will receive.

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 positions this as a single-settlement bundle that replaces five separate parts at the same total price, giving the agent a clear reason to select it over calling the individual tools. It does not state counter-indications such as 'use individual tools when only one component is needed,' so it stops 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the multi-exchange coverage and the $0.005 USDC price, which is useful, but it does not disclose that the tool likely requires payment to obtain full data (only implied by the price), what gets returned when called without payment, or whether it is a read-only operation. The payment flow is only in the schema, not the tool description.

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 core description is one efficient sentence covering data content, sources, and cost. It is front-loaded with the main subject. The schema contains more elaborate payment instructions — worth keeping there — though the description could have added a short 'requires paid access' hint without redundancy.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a caller receives and what triggers. It reveals content and price, but not the expected outcome of the first (unpaid) call, the response structure, or failure modes. Useful but thin on the payment-required behavioral side.

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%, so the schema fully documents the payment parameter. The description adds the cost detail ($0.005 USDC) but does not clarify the two-step payment workflow (call once, receive requirements, sign, call again). The schema carries the weight here.

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 is specific: 'Trader positioning' with concrete metrics (open interest, long/short ratios, funding) and the exact sources (Binance + CoinEx, $0.005 USDC). It clearly distinguishes its content from siblings like get_funding_rates or get_market_overview.

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 a use case — checking trader positioning as a sentiment/flow signal — but does not state when to prefer it over get_funding_rates, get_sentiment, or get_market_overview. No exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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 discloses only the USDC cost; it does not state that a payment payload is required, that the first call returns payment requirements, or what the returned sentiment data looks like.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every part carries information — resource and price. It could be improved by turning it into an explicit verb phrase, but it is not padded or wasteful.

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

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

It is minimally adequate for a single-parameter tool: the cost is stated and the payment parameter is fully documented. However, there is no output schema, no description of the return shape, and no reference to the closely related try_sentiment sibling, leaving selection and first-call expectations incomplete.

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

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

The single parameter has 100% schema coverage and is already well documented in the input schema: Base64 payload, ERC-3009, USDC on Base, signing flow, and the two-call pattern. The description does not need to add parameter semantics; 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 — 'Fear & Greed + composite sentiment' — with its cost, which goes beyond the tool name. It lacks an explicit verb, but the get_sentiment name plus that resource makes the intent clear. It does not differentiate from sibling try_sentiment, so it is not 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as try_sentiment. The payment sequencing is documented in the parameter schema, but the description itself provides no usage context 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the methodology ('Every claim is written down before the outcome exists and scored afterwards from our own recorded series'), the cost ('FREE'), and the tool's role in signal trust assessment. It does not mention rate limits or return format, but the behavioral context is sufficient for an agent.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, methodology, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero 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 simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the concept, methodology, and usage intent. It does not detail the return format, but the agent can infer calibration metrics are returned. The description is complete enough for selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single 'days' parameter has a description: 'window, default 30'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it scores at the baseline. The parameter is adequately documented in the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'How often our own signals turned right, scored against a naive baseline.' It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_signal_history_7d (historical data) and get_funding_predictions (predictions) by focusing on calibration accuracy.

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 explicit guidance: 'Read this before trusting any signal here — including to find out which ones we cannot yet justify charging for.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (before other signals) and implies its role in evaluating trustworthiness. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds concrete details: the data is hourly, bounded to 30 days, and priced at $0.012 USDC. The payment handshake itself is already detailed in the payment parameter schema, so it does not need to be repeated.

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 compact sentence that conveys granularity, time window, and cost without filler. Each clause earns its place, and the most important identifying information comes first.

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 2-parameter endpoint with full schema coverage, this is fairly complete: the window, cadence, and price are all stated. However, the required signal argument remains open-ended with no output schema and no guidance about valid signal names, so an agent may still need to guess before calling.

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 covers both parameters fully, and the required parameter has a basic description, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes only a small cue that the signal is 'derived'; it still does not specify valid signal values or point to where they are 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?

The description identifies the resource as a derived signal's recorded hourly history over the most recent 30 days, which distinguishes it from get_signal_history_7d and get_signal_history_full. It is a bit of a noun phrase rather than a full action statement ('returns' or 'gets' is implicit in the tool name), so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

'Most recent 30 days' provides clear context for when this endpoint is appropriate: the agent can choose it for a month-long, hourly historical view. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it is not full routing guidance.

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 usefully discloses the hourly granularity, 7-day limit, USDC cost, and the fact that the data cannot be reconstructed from public sources afterward. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or the two-step payment/payment-requirements flow, though the payment flow is described in the input schema. With no annotations present, the description only partially carries the behavioral transparency burden.

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 short sentences that immediately state the core capability, time window, and cost. The final clause about non-reconstructability is a valuable differentiator, and no words are wasted.

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

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

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description gives the essential duration and pricing context. However, because there is no output schema, the description does not clearly explain the response shape or expected data series, and it leaves sibling-selection inference to the 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, including signal examples and a detailed payment parameter description. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond 'signal history', so the 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 names the resource: an hourly recorded derived-signal history for the most recent 7 days, and even adds the price. It distinguishes from 'public' data sources, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_signal_history_30d or get_signal_history_full in the text itself. Overall, the core purpose is clear and actionable.

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

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

Usage context is implied: use this when a recorded 7-day hourly signal history is needed and when public reconstruction is insufficient. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention which sibling tool should be chosen for longer history windows.

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 must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions the cost and that the data is 'recorded hourly', but it does not explain the payment process, rate limits, or that calling without payment returns payment requirements—even though the schema hints at this. The description surfaces a paid, history-returning read, but is thin overall.

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 compact sentence that packs in the resource, granularity, price, and completeness in one breath. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a paid data-retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description leaves out the payment flow details (even though the schema mentions them), how results are delivered, and how this full-history variant relates to the 7d/30d siblings. The cost mention is useful, but an agent is still under-informed about what will happen when calling it.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does clarify that the signal is 'derived', adding a small bit of context about which signal field is expected, but it does not meaningfully expand on the payment 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 names a specific resource ('derived signal'), a scope ('complete recorded hourly history'), and a cost. It can be distinguished from the sibling tools by the 'hourly' and 'complete' qualifiers, though it only implies the distinction against get_signal_history_7d/30d.

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 given about when to use this tool versus get_signal_history_7d or get_signal_history_30d. The description does not mention prerequisites, differences in granularity, or any conditions that would lead an agent to choose this tool.

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 must disclose behavioral context, but it only provides a domain and a price. It does not tell the agent whether this is a read-only observation, what the reported values mean, whether it uses live or historical data, or what happens before authorization. The price is useful, but the description does not carry enough of the behavioral burden.

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 short, front-loaded phrase with no filler and no redundant restatement of the tool name. It loses a point because it is closer to a label fragment than a complete, structured explanation of what the tool will do and return.

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?

This is a paid, externally authorized tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide more context about response shape and invocation behavior. The payment flow is covered in the schema, but the actual health/depeg semantics is not detailed enough for an agent to fully predict the result.

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 only parameter is fully documented in the input schema, including the ERC-3009 x402 payment flow and the call-without-payment first step. The description adds only a per-call cost cue, which is not parameter semantics, so the schema-driven baseline 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 names the monitored resource (USDC/DAI depeg status) and clearly signals a stablecoin-health tool, which distinguishes it from the broader market, price, and sentiment tools in the sibling list. It does not fully explain what the returned health output contains, so it falls short of an unambiguous, schema-replaceable 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool instead of alternatives like get_crypto_prices or get_market_overview. The use case is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'depeg monitoring'; there are no exclusions, preconditions, or instructions about the paid x402 flow.

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 shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the cost and the signal interpretation; it does not explain call-success behavior, whether paid calls are required, rate limits, or what output shape the agent should expect. The payment behavior is only revealed in the parameter schema, not the description.

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 one tight sentence that packs the core data, interpretation, and price point. It loses only a little polish due to the informal abbreviation 'circ' and the slightly dense 'overhang ratio' phrasing, but every phrase earns its place.

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

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

For a parameter-light getter, the description conveys the core output categories and signal meaning. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent is left without details on which coins are considered 'major', what order/format the data is returned in, and how to interpret the overhang ratio numerically.

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

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

There is only one parameter, payment, and the input schema describes it in detail (Base64 x402 payload, self-signed ERC-3009, first-call behavior, no key held). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The description adds nothing about payment but also does not need to because the schema handles it.

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 resource — circulating/total/max supply and circ/total overhang ratio per major coin — and labels it as a structural sell-pressure signal. It is distinct from all sibling metric tools (sentiment, funding, prices, etc.), though it relies on a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists'.

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 given about when to use this tool over alternatives, when supply overhang is a relevant signal, or when a user should ignore it. Sibling tools are numerous and cover sentiment, funding, technicals, etc., so the absence of any selection guidance is a real gap.

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

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

Because there are no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call costs $0.005 USDC and uses fractal analysis for S/R levels, but it does not describe the output format, the sign-and-pay workflow, or return/error behavior beyond what is implied by the name.

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 with no filler; every word contributes to purpose, method, or pricing. This is an appropriately sized description for a low-complexity getter.

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 only two parameters and no required arguments, the description is close to adequate when supplemented by the payment schema and default symbol. Still, it lacks a description of the output and does not route the agent to related tools, so it is more minimum-viable than 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 schema describes only the 'payment' parameter, leaving 'symbol' undocumented by both description and schema. The symbol parameter is inferable from the name and default of BTCUSDT, but the description adds no parameter-level clarity and does not compensate for the 50% 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 tells an agent that the tool computes support/resistance levels using fractal analysis, so the resource and method are clear. However, it relies on the abbreviation 'S/R' and does not explicitly differentiate the tool from related technical-analysis getters.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_technical_indicators or get_liquidation_levels. There is no statement of intended context, exclusions, or alternatives, so usage guidance is essentially absent.

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 must carry behavioral context. It reveals a per-call cost in USDC and a payment payload requirement, which is useful, but it omits any mention of the likely flow (call first without a payment token to get payment requirements, then re-call with the signed payload). It also doesn't disclose that the server forwards the payload and never holds a key, even though the schema's payment description does. The description is too short to fully disclose payment and failure 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?

The description is extremely concise: a short list of indicators and a cost. Nothing is wasted. It is not as richly structured as it could be; a single sentence with a verb would be clearer, but it remains scanable and adequate.

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 covers what the tool returns and its nominal cost, which is the most mission-critical information. However, it lacks a mention of the two-call payment flow and any detail about return shape. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, one extra sentence about how payment is provided would meaningfully improve an agent's chance of invoking 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 about 33% of parameters are described in the schema, so the description adds value by naming the computed indicators and payment requirement. The interval enum is self-explanatory and symbol has a default, so the agent can still call the tool correctly. Some details about payment flow are in the payment parameter description, but the description itself reinforces the cost.

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 concrete resource (technical indicators) and lists the specific indicators (RSI, MACD, Bollinger Bands, ATR), which distinguishes it from broader or sentiment-based siblings. It does not explicitly state 'retrieve' or 'get', but the tool name covers that verb. Overall, an agent can identify what this tool does and which type of data it returns.

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 the tool is used to fetch technical indicators for a symbol at a given interval, with a payment requirement. It does not explain when to choose this over similar siblings like get_volatility, get_market_pulse, or get_support_resistance. It also lacks explicit alternative/routing guidance, so an agent would rely on name matching and the indicator list.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does transparently signal that the call has a USD-denominated cost ('$0.002 USDC'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that data is returned on first call versus a payment-requirements response, although the input schema does describe the two-step x402 payment flow.

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 phrase that states the metric, the asset scope, and the price with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the missing details live in the parameter schema.

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 and schema together cover the metric, the assets, the payment flow, and the price, which is most of what an agent needs for this simple tool. However, there is no output schema and no statement about the return value, so an agent must guess whether the result is a percentage, a list of values, or a time series.

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% parameter-documentation coverage: it fully explains the optional x402 payment payload, the signing requirement, and the server behavior. The description adds the exact price but not much about how to construct the payment parameter, so the schema rightfully does the heavy lifting.

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 metric ('24h volatility') and the exact asset universe ('BTC/ETH/SOL'), so an agent can tell this from the many price, sentiment, and technical-indicator siblings. Although it lacks a verb, the tool name 'get_volatility' supplies the action and the phrase names a concrete, measurable resource.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives like get_technical_indicators, get_crypto_prices, or get_historical. It implies the context through the metric name, but it does not state exclusions, preferred use cases, or how to choose between volatility norms and related 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, and it discloses the key behavioral traits: no payment required, a 30 req/min rate limit, and identical data to the paid sibling. It does not describe the exact output shape, but the return content (prices for five assets) is implied clearly enough.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important fact ('FREE SAMPLE, no payment'). Every sentence earns its place: what data, the rate limit, and the paid alternative.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it names the covered assets, states real-time pricing, discloses the rate limit, and routes to the paid sibling when needed. An agent has everything required to decide whether and when to call it.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because there is nothing to document; the schema already fully covers this by declaring an empty properties object.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('prices'), a precise resource set (BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP), and a clear delivery mode ('real-time'). It also distinguishes the tool from the paid get_crypto_prices sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 marks this as a free, rate-limited sample and names the paid alternative get_crypto_prices as the version without the limit. This gives the agent clear selection criteria: use this for free/sample needs and the paid tool when the rate limit is unacceptable.

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 disclosure burden. It reveals two key operational traits: the tool requires no payment and is rate-limited to 30 requests/min. Not specifying response format is acceptable for a zero-parameter sample endpoint.

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?

Three compact segments deliver distinct value: what the tool is, the rate limit, and the paid alternative. Every sentence earns its place and the most differentiating 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 no-parameter data-sample tool, the description is complete: the agent knows what data to expect, the limiting constraint, and when to switch to the paid sibling. No additional detail is needed 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning because there is nothing to configure.

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 identifies the resource as perpetual funding rates and frames this tool as a free sample. It explicitly contrasts with the paid get_funding_rates sibling, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Names the alternative tool, get_funding_rates, and states the trade-off: same data but the paid version removes the rate limit. This gives the agent an explicit selection criterion between the free and paid variants.

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 disclose two important operational constraints: 'no payment' and 'Rate-limited to 30 requests/min.' It also clarifies this is a sample of the same dataset, not a different product. It does not mention response shape or authentication, but those are less critical for a parameterless read-only endpoint.

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 the core value proposition front-loaded ('FREE SAMPLE, no payment: current market sentiment') followed by the limit and the sibling comparison. Every clause adds information, and there is no redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 parameterless, read-only sample tool, this is nearly complete: it states the data type, pricing, rate limit, and relationship to the paid sibling. The main gap is that it does not describe the response payload, though the 'same data' reference to get_sentiment provides some anchoring.

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 input schema is already complete with 100% coverage. The description correctly spends no words on parameters, and the baseline for a 0-parameter tool 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 identifies the resource ('current market sentiment') and frames the tool as a free sample, which distinguishes it from the paid get_sentiment sibling. However, it never uses an explicit action verb like 'fetches' or 'returns,' relying on the name and 'FREE SAMPLE' to imply the operation.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with get_sentiment: this one is free and rate-limited, while get_sentiment is 'the same data' without the limit. That gives an agent a concrete decision rule: use this for a no-cost sample, and get_sentiment when the 30 requests/min limit is unacceptable.

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?

Even though no annotations exist, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it costs $0.010 USDC, has a 168-hour lifetime, and creates a server-side standing condition. It stops short of explaining cancellation, error handling, or the exact effect of payment failure, but the cost and persistent side effect are usefully revealed.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the most critical info: purpose, cost, and duration. Each sentence earns its place, including the alternative polling mechanism. No redundant content.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description gives a good high-level context but leaves out important operational details such as what the response looks like, whether a condition ID is returned, or how to know the registration was successful. It also leaves the undocumented params ambiguous. This is not fully complete for a paid, state-changing registration 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 coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the missing fields. It does not explain what 'signal', 'op', or 'threshold' mean or how they map to a condition. The generic phrase 'standing condition' does not make the parameter semantics clear.

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 action ('Register a standing condition') and the resource (the always-on server watching it), making the tool's purpose obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling getters and try_* tools, which are data-fetching operations.

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 explicitly describes when to use the tool (when an agent needs to wait without running) and points to watch_status as a free alternative to poll status. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives, but the getter vs. registration distinction is clear from context.

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