Strale

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destruction, and the description adds genuinely new context: the response is EUR cents (integer) plus a formatted EUR string, and it discloses the auth requirement and that a missing API key produces an auth instruction rather than an error. That return-shape and auth-failure behavior are valuable since no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences: purpose, usage timing, and return/auth behavior, in that order. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, and what happens when unauthenticated. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly says nothing about inputs, avoiding noise.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Returns the current Strale wallet balance') and is unambiguous against siblings like strale_execute or strale_transaction, which do not read balance. An agent knows exactly what this tool yields without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('before executing paid capabilities to verify sufficient funds', 'after a series of calls to reconcile spend'), which implicitly points at strale_execute. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating a when-not-to-use condition, but no sibling overlaps here.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations (openWorld/non-idempotent/destructive) by disclosing the actual cost model: paid capabilities debit the wallet, free capabilities have a monthly per-IP allowance, and the return object includes latency, price charged, and data provenance. It also points at the max_price_cents guard, which explains why an execution can fail rather than overspend.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then prerequisites, then return shape, then pricing. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical endpoint reference (GET /v1/platform/facts) is a bit dense for a tool description.

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 output schema, the description supplies the return shape (capability output, latency, price charged, provenance). For a meta-tool with a dynamic nested input object, it covers discovery, execution, cost, and failure conditions 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining that 'inputs' is a dynamic payload governed by the target capability's own schema, which strale_search reports. It doesn't explain the default/behavior of max_price_cents beyond what the schema says, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Executes a Strale capability by slug and returns the result') and enumerates the capability classes it covers (verification, validation, lookup, data extraction). This clearly separates it from strale_search, which only lists capabilities.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites and sequencing: 'Call strale_search first to find the right slug and required input fields' and 'check strale_balance first for high-value calls.' It also tells the agent the free-tier path exists, so an agent can choose a no-cost capability before spending.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context — no API key, no signup for the x402 route, and what the response contains. It doesn't state the response format (text vs. structured), which is the one behavioral detail left 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?

Three tight sentences, purpose first, trigger second, payload content third — well front-loaded with no filler. Minor redundancy between 'what is available without credentials' and 'No API key required' keeps it from a 5.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content and does so at a category level (free-tier capabilities, example inputs, x402 route, registry path). The omission is the response format, which matters slightly more here precisely because there is no 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 by rule. The description reinforces this implicitly by noting that no credentials or setup inputs are required, leaving nothing for an agent to guess.

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 a specific verb and resource — it explains how to start using Strale — and clearly separates itself from the operational siblings (balance, execute, search) by being the onboarding entry point. An agent can identify this as the first-call tool without consulting any schema.

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?

'Call this on first connection' is an explicit, unambiguous trigger condition, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming when-not-to-call or explicitly routing to a sibling afterwards, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that no API key is needed, but says nothing about what the returned notes look like or whether output is static text.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no padding. The second sentence about API keys is a useful prerequisite stated compactly.

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 parameters, no output schema and read-only annotations, the definition is close to sufficient, but it does not tell the agent the shape of the returned notes or how they differ from strale_getting_started content.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies nothing needs to be supplied, and there are no parameter semantics to document.

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

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

States a verb ('Explains') and lists topics (testing modes, source context, transaction retrieval), but the phrasing is loose and 'transaction retrieval' sits oddly next to documentation topics. There is no differentiation from the sibling strale_getting_started, which plausibly covers similar overview ground.

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 statement of when to call this instead of strale_getting_started or strale_search. The only usable cue is 'No API key required', which hints at a prerequisite but not a usage condition.

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, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: 'No API key required' resolves an auth question the agent would otherwise have to guess at, and it enumerates what the call returns.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered by value: what it does, when to call it, what comes back, auth caveat. The return-field enumeration is slightly listy, but each item is informative given no output schema exists.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so (status, version, tool count, capability count, solution count, timestamp). Combined with the no-API-key note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly; only response types/format remain unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The schema accepts no properties and the description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Checks that the Strale API is reachable and the MCP server is running'), which is clearly distinguishable from the capability-execution siblings like strale_execute. An agent can tell instantly this is a connectivity probe, not a business 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?

Gives explicit triggers: 'Call this before a series of capability executions to verify connectivity, or when troubleshooting connection issues.' This is concrete when-to-use guidance rather than implied usage, and no sibling competes for this role.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are ranked by relevance, each carries slug/name/description/category/price in EUR cents, and no API key is required to search — real auth and return-shape context 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?

Four tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The registry-domain list and the return-field enumeration are doing some work but sit close to the edge of padding.

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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating returned fields and price units, and it covers auth requirements. Pagination behavior and result-count limits are the only omission for a 3-parameter search 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%, so the schema documents all three parameters; the description only reinforces that the query can be a natural-language phrase rather than a literal keyword. It says nothing about offset/pagination or how the category argument constrains results, so the baseline of 3 is right.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Searches the Strale capability registry') plus the three search modes (keyword, category, natural language), which lets an agent distinguish it from the execute/balance/transaction siblings without opening a schema.

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?

'Use this when you need to find the right capability for a task but don't know the exact slug' gives an explicit triggering condition and implicitly routes known-slug callers elsewhere. It stops short of naming strale_execute as the alternative, so the exclusions are inferred rather than stated.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the exact returned fields (inputs, outputs, latency, price, provenance, status, failure categorization) and the API-key exemption for free-tier records.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return contents, use cases, and an access note. Every sentence adds information without 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates what is returned, and it covers the relevant auth nuance. It does not discuss retention limits or error behavior when an ID is not found, but it is otherwise complete for a single-parameter 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% and the single parameter is already documented as the transaction ID returned from strale_execute. The description reinforces the ID's origin but adds no syntax, format, or lookup constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

States a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a past execution record by transaction ID), and explicitly ties it to the sibling strale_execute by saying it lets you inspect what a previous call returned. An agent can distinguish it from strale_execute and strale_search 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?

Gives clear when-to-use cases: inspecting a previous strale_execute result, debugging failures, and building an audit trail. It also notes free-tier access without an API key. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or an alternative for broader searching, but the context is strong.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are public, some values are only available 'where available', and no API key is required.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. Purpose, supporting-resource guidance and the API-key caveat each earn their 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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete and even lists the return signals despite there being no output schema. It offloads some detail to the catalogue, which is reasonable but keeps it from being fully self-contained.

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 both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description's phrase 'for a tool or bundle' loosely maps to the type parameter but adds no syntax or format detail 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 gives a specific verb and resource: reads current public test results for a tool or bundle. It enumerates the returned fields (badge, tested flag, pass rate, last-tested time), making the purpose clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from nearby sibling tools such as web3_assurance or search.

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 test and availability signals and points to the catalogue for inputs, limitations and sources. It does not state when to use this instead of alternatives, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'No API key required'.

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 read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive; the description adds context those cannot carry — the two evaluator modes with their trade-offs (outbound: full evaluator set, 8s budget; reverse-call: critical evaluators only, limited set), the four verdict outcomes including insufficient_evidence, the enumerated evidence categories, and a sidecar audit_url for verification. This tells the agent latency and coverage expectations before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then modes, then the usage trigger — a sensible ordering. The return-value enumeration is a long parenthetical list that verges on overstuffed, but every element (verdict vocabulary, evidence categories) carries information the agent needs since there is no output 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return payload: verdict enum, reason_codes format, critical_flags, suggested_action, evidence map, and audit_url. Combined with mode selection, latency budget, and supported targets, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly in one shot.

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 each parameter already carries a substantive description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The prose reinforces mode semantics and target_type inference but introduces no syntax, format, or constraint details absent from the schema — much of the mode and action guidance is restated rather than added.

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 a specific verb ('Returns a decision-ready answer') and a precisely scoped resource (on-chain counterparty), enumerating the target kinds: wallet, smart contract, token, DeFi protocol, bridge. An agent immediately knows what it gets back (verdict, reason_codes, flags, evidence, audit_url). It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling strale_trust_profile, which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: 'Use before any agent transacts on-chain — sending value, swapping, staking, minting, bridging, or interacting with a contract,' and names the condition that selects reverse-call ('when you are an x402 service publisher gating an inbound buyer'). No exclusions or named alternatives among siblings (e.g. strale_trust_profile), so it falls 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.