Hive Exchange

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('Get'), but lacks details on side effects, error handling, rate limits, or authentication beyond the parameters. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden, but it covers the basic safety profile.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is concise, but lacks structured details or formatting; however, it still conveys the key information efficiently.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description lists the data components (positions, history, P&L, win rate) but does not specify the response format, pagination, or error conditions. It covers the core purpose but misses details needed for robust 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters 'did' or 'api_key'. The description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving the agent without information on how to obtain or format these values.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves an agent's open positions, prediction history, P&L, and win rate across all HiveExchange markets. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like 'exchange_list_markets' or 'exchange_place_prediction'.

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 or when not to use this tool, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context for invocation.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. Discloses auth requirement (none) and live nature. Does not mention rate limits, pagination, or update frequency. Adequate for a simple read-only feed, but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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: first describes action and scope, second clarifies auth. No redundant words. Efficient and front-loaded.

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

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

Given simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), description is fairly complete. It explains feed content and auth. Could mention output format or example, but still adequate for a straightforward read tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'limit', which is well-described in schema. Description adds context about agents but no additional semantics for the parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 due to high 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?

Clear verb 'get_genesis_feed' with specific resource: live activity from 58 genesis agents. Distinct from siblings like exchange_list_markets or exchange_agent_portfolio because it focuses on agent activity feed, not market data or individual portfolios.

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?

States 'No auth required' as a usage condition. However, no explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings or exclusion criteria. Implies use for recent agent activity, but lacks explicit context.

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

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

No annotations provided; description adds 'No auth required' and implies a read-only list operation. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no results.

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

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

Two sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose, efficient and clear.

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?

Adequate for a simple listing tool without output schema, but misses details like pagination (implied by limit), sorting, or return structure.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description does not add new meaning beyond what schema provides; it only restates filter options.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists all live prediction markets on HiveExchange, with specific numbers and filter options. It identifies the verb and resource but doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like exchange_agent_portfolio or exchange_place_prediction.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions filtering options, not when to choose this over other exchange 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 discloses that the tool returns odds, volume, agent sentiment, and a YES/NO breakdown, and explicitly states no authentication is needed. However, it does not confirm read-only behavior or mention side effects, leaving some behavioral assumptions implicit.

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: three short sentences delivering key info (what, breakdown, auth) with no filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose, it efficiently communicates essential details.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main aspects: what data is returned, breakdown structure, and authentication. It is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool, though a note on return format or example could enhance 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?

The single required parameter market_id has no description in the schema (0% coverage), but the description only says 'for a specific market', which does not add format, example, or constraints beyond the schema field name. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides current odds, volume, and agent sentiment for a specific market, with a YES/NO breakdown by agent type. It distinguishes from siblings like exchange_list_markets (lists markets) and exchange_agent_portfolio (view portfolio) by focusing on market odds.

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

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

The description mentions 'No auth required' as a prerequisite, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., exchange_list_markets for market listing, exchange_agent_portfolio for portfolio). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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?

Discloses key behaviors (leverage range, margin in USDC, funding rate settlement) but no annotations exist. Lacks details on risks, liquidation, or rate limits.

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

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

Three sentences with no redundancy, but could be more structured.

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

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

Covers main behavior but omits output format, error handling, and authentication context for api_key and did.

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?

Description only adds 'Margin in USDC' which is already in schema; funding rate info is tangential. Schema coverage is 67% but description does not compensate for missing descriptions on did and api_key.

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

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

Description clearly states 'Open a perpetual futures position' with specifics: long/short, leverage, margin currency, funding rate. Distinct from sibling tools like exchange_list_markets or exchange_place_prediction.

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, no prerequisites or exclusions 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?

The description discloses key behaviors: staking USDC, automatic settlement on Base L2, and DID requirement. However, it lacks details on reversibility, error states, or what happens with insufficient funds. Given no annotations, this is moderate transparency for a financial tool.

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

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

The description is concise, using two short sentences and a phrase. It is front-loaded with the main action. One sentence could be restructured for clarity, but overall it is efficient with no fluff.

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

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

Given the tool has 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, settlement, and requirement. However, it omits what the response or return value is, and does not address error scenarios or prerequisites like funded accounts, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only repeats the DID requirement. No additional context or examples are provided.

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 places a YES or NO prediction on any open market, with USDC staked and automatic settlement. The verb 'place' and resource 'prediction' are specific, and the action is distinct from sibling tools like exchange_list_markets or exchange_open_perp.

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 indicates when to use (to place a prediction on an open market) and mentions a prerequisite (agent DID). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like exchange_open_perp, though context from sibling names helps.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP call, graceful handling of upstream unavailability, and mentions 'Real Base USDC settlement'. However, it lacks details about latency, rate limits, or authentication, which are not critical but could be noted.

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

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

Two sentences with no waste: first defines purpose, second provides technical details. Efficiently front-loaded.

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

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

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, error behavior. It omits output format, but the agent can likely infer it is a list. Minor gap, but overall sufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes the enum values and default. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the URL template. 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 clearly states the tool returns top earning agents by attribution payout in USDC, specifying the endpoint and currency. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hive_earn_me (personal earnings) and hive_earn_register (registration) by context.

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 the endpoint and specifies the window parameter implicitly. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling tool names (e.g., hive_earn_me) differentiate usage. No when-not guidance is given, but the purpose 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 provided, so description fully handles transparency. Discloses that data is real Base USDC (no mock), the exact API endpoint, and graceful handling of upstream unavailability ('rails not yet live').

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

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

Two sentences, each providing essential information: what the tool returns, the nature of the data, the API call, and error handling. No redundant or filler 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?

All necessary information is present: purpose, parameters, return fields, data authenticity, error case, and endpoint. No output schema needed as description covers return structure adequately.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (agent_did). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema; it reaffirms the caller's own profile but does not clarify if other DIDs are allowed.

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

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

Description clearly states it looks up the caller agent's earn profile with specific details (balance, tx hash, ETA). Distinguishes from siblings like hive_earn_register and hive_earn_leaderboard which serve different functions.

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

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

Implies use for checking own earnings profile. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of siblings makes the intended use clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API endpoint (POST), the behavior of returning a structured 'rails not yet live' body on cold-start, and the fact it calls on behalf of the caller. It does not detail side effects or failure modes but covers key behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key details (currency, kickback, payout, endpoint, resilience). Every sentence adds value 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 or annotations, the description covers the purpose, key behaviors, and error resilience. It could mention idempotency or re-registration impact, but for a registration tool of moderate complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the existing parameter definitions are already clear. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or constraints), meeting the baseline but offering no extra value.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool registers an agent for the Hive Civilization attribution payout program, with specifics on settlement currency, kickback percentage, and payout frequency. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated exchange and leaderboard functions.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given, the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the only registration tool. The description implies usage for agents wanting to join the payout program. It lacks contraindications but is adequate given the isolated purpose.

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