Hive Swap

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses graceful error handling ('rails not yet live') but does not mention authentication, rate limits, data freshness, or whether the tool requires specific permissions. The API endpoint and error behavior are 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?

The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second provides the API call, the third notes graceful failure. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the resource (top earning agents), metric (attribution payout in USDC), and error behavior. Minor missing context: no mention of result format (e.g., list of objects) or pagination, but not critical given simplicity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'window' parameter, which already includes enum values and default. The description simply restates the endpoint with the parameter but no new semantic 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 states the tool returns the top earning agents on the Hive Civilization by attribution payout in USDC, distinguishing it from siblings like hive_earn_me (likely user-specific) and hive_earn_register (registration). The verb 'earning' and resource 'leaderboard' are specific.

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

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

The description implicitly suggests using this tool to retrieve the leaderboard of top earners, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), endpoint URL, that it uses real Base USDC, and graceful error handling for deferred upstream. However, it does not explicitly state read-only or idempotent nature, nor auth requirements.

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

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

Two concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and key returns, followed by context on data authenticity and error handling. No redundant information.

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

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

For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers key return fields, behavior, and error case. It lacks explicit details on output format but naming fields compensates. Missing subtle context like authentication or session requirements.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of agent_did as required. The description adds that the parameter is used in the URL query string and is for the caller agent, but does not provide additional semantic depth beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool looks up the caller agent's earn profile and lists specific data returned (lifetime + pending USDC balance, last payout tx hash, next-payout ETA). It also mentions the endpoint and distinguishes from sibling tools (leaderboard, register) by focusing on self-profile retrieval.

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 this is for the caller's own profile but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites (e.g., must be registered) are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations provided, but description covers key behavioral traits: POST request, cold-start resilience, and return behavior ('rails not yet live'). Lacks explicit mention of write nature or idempotency.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose first, then mechanics, then endpoint and resilience. No redundant information.

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

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

Covers registration program details, parameters, and response behavior despite no output schema. Provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds meaningful context: agent DID format, Base EVM address for payouts, URL purpose. Enhances understanding beyond 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?

Clearly states it registers an agent for the Hive Civilization attribution payout program, with details on settlement, kickback, and endpoint. Distinguishable from siblings like hive_earn_leaderboard.

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

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

Describes the tool's purpose and context (registration for a payout program), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. Still clear overall.

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 are all false, so the description adds value by disclosing behavioral traits: agent signs themselves, 5 bps fee, trust attachments, and wallet custody. No contradiction 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?

The description is four sentences, each adding distinct information with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose, trust layer, fee, and custody 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?

Without an output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., transaction object for signing). It covers process well but lacks return value info, which is important for 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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the schema, but provides useful context about the overall process.

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 constructs a swap transaction that the agent signs themselves, specifying dependencies like trust score, AML attestation, and a fee. It distinguishes from siblings like swap_route.quote by emphasizing execution and custody.

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

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

The description implies usage for executing swaps after a quote, but does not explicitly state when to use versus swap_route.quote or when not to use. No alternative tools or conditions are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'No authentication required,' the fee structure (5 bps), the source of liquidity (partner DEXes), and what is returned (route comparison with trust scores and AML attestations). This goes beyond the 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 three sentences long, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return value, fees and security. 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description sufficiently covers the return format (route comparison with trust scores and AML attestations), fees, and security. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The main description adds minimal extra meaning beyond existing param descriptions. It mentions chain preference and token symbols, but those are already covered 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: 'Get the best swap route across Uniswap v3 (Base), Jupiter (Solana), and OKX DEX.' This is a specific verb-get and resource-swap route, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool swap_route.execute by focusing on quoting rather than execution.

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 clear context: 'No authentication required' and 'Hive charges 5 bps trust + receipt fee.' It implicitly contrasts with swap_route.execute by being a quote-only tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios, though the sibling tool provides differentiation.

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