Hive Capital

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the specific return components (active positions, unrealized P&L, earned yield, total AUM, historical performance across equity, credit, and capability staking markets), exceeding the annotation baseline.

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 concise (two sentences), with the first sentence front-loading the purpose and the second adding details. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of return fields and market types. It does not address pagination or limits, but for a portfolio viewing tool, the coverage is very good. The read-only annotation reduces the need for further behavioral details.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'View' and the resource 'full investment portfolio and returns'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'capital.get_returns' which likely focuses only on returns, and other tools for investing or staking.

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

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

The description implies use when needing a full portfolio overview, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this versus alternative tools like 'capital.get_returns' or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or context for selection among siblings are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds beyond: specifies return types (time-series, yield, total returns vs benchmark, risk-adjusted metrics), providing useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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

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

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output.

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

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

No output schema, but description enumerates key return types. For a read-only data retrieval tool with 4 well-documented params, the description is fairly complete, though it could mention pagination or error handling.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all 4 parameters described. Description does not add additional details about parameters beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'historical return data for an agent's capital positions' on HiveCapital. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_portfolio (current positions) and invest (making investments).

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_portfolio). Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does without usage context.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the settlement process (USDC on Base L2 via HiveBank) and what the tool returns (position ID, projected APY, settlement receipt). While annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive mutation, the description fills in details about the financial mechanics and response.

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 concise, two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first states what and where, second states settlement outcome and returns.

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 the main action, settlement process, and return values sufficiently. For a tool with no output schema, it adequately describes the return structure. While it doesn't mention lockup_days or prerequisites explicitly, the input schema provides those details. The description is complete enough given the context of available schema and annotations.

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

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

Input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions settlement currency and returns, but these are about behavior, not parameter details. 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 uses specific verb 'Deploy capital' and specifies the resource ('agent equity or credit market on HiveCapital'). It also mentions returns and settlement, making purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like list_markets or stake_capability.

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

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

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks context like prerequisites (e.g., list markets first) or exclusions (e.g., staking).

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail 'No authentication required,' which is not in annotations, and lists return fields, providing extra transparency beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing return fields and a key behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (market ID, type, APY, etc.) and notes no authentication required. It covers essential context for a read-only listing tool, though pagination details are implicit via the limit parameter.

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 includes descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description mentions the return fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema-provided parameter descriptions, so it meets 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 clearly states the tool browses all available investment markets and lists the returned fields (ID, type, APY, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like capital.invest or capital.get_portfolio, which have different purposes.

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

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

The description provides clear context by noting that no authentication is required and listing return fields. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the sibling tools suggest different actions, and the description implies use for discovery before investing.

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

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

Annotations show no hints (readOnly, idempotent, destructive) but the description implies mutation ('stake'). It does not disclose potential lock periods or reversibility, though duration_days parameter suggests time commitment. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, token meaning, and yield mechanism. No unnecessary words. Could be restructured slightly but overall well-sized.

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 5 parameters all described in schema, and no output schema, the description explains the core concept and motivation. It could mention minimum staking duration or irreversible nature, but remains reasonably complete for an agent to infer usage.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with inline descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds business context (capability tokens represent skills, yield from other agents) but does not enhance parameter-level understanding beyond what 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 states the action: 'Stake capability tokens to earn yield on HiveCapital.' It explains what capability tokens represent (agent skills) and how yield is generated (from other agents purchasing access). This distinguishes from sibling tools like invest or get_portfolio.

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

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

While not explicitly stating when to use vs alternatives, the context makes it clear: to earn yield by staking specific capability tokens. The description implies this is for earning yield rather than direct investment, which differentiates from invest. However, it could be more explicit.

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