cryptopulse

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 suggests a read-only status check and identifies the returned information, but it does not disclose whether data is live or cached, whether any side effects exist, or whether authentication 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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the resource and purpose before listing the key output fields. Every word adds relevant 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?

Given the low complexity—no parameters, no annotations, no output schema—the description covers the essential return categories: strategy version, symbol, and performance stats. It leaves 'performance stats' somewhat vague, but for a zero-input status tool the description is largely adequate.

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 and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the output contents instead of input details.

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 the CryptoPulse Alpha trading bot and the purpose as retrieving its status. It enumerates specific contents—strategy version, symbol, performance stats—which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on market data, smart money, signals, wallets, and whales.

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 should be used when the agent needs information about the CryptoPulse Alpha bot's current operating state. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or any exclusions, so the usage context is only inferred.

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 states the core behavior—returning prices and stats for major tracked tokens—and implies a read-only market snapshot, which is the main behavioral trait for this kind of tool. However, it does not clarify data recency, currency, exact token coverage, or that no state is modified, and with no annotations the description carries the full 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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and adds specifics with a clean em-dash construction. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of structured schema 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 zero-parameter tool the description is largely sufficient to make the call, but it does not explain the output format, what 'stats' include, or which tokens count as 'major tracked.' Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a sentence describing expected return fields would make it more 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing about parameters for the description to explain; the baseline 4 applies. The description does not invent irrelevant configuration details and introduces no parameter ambiguity.

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 ('crypto market overview') and its content ('prices and stats for major tracked tokens'), and the tool name supplies the 'get' verb. It is distinguishable from specialized siblings like get_whale_movements or get_trading_signals, though sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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 use this tool versus the alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned. The wording only implies it is the broad-market fallback, leaving an agent to infer selection criteria from sibling names rather than from the description.

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 supplied, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: recency and inclusion criteria (high-scoring funds, market makers, notable wallets). However, it does not disclose rate limits, data-source delay, pagination, or output format.

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 or redundant information. Every phrase adds meaning and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 read tool, the description covers the high-level meaning of the returned data. However, there is no output schema, so the response shape and recency bounds remain unspecified, and no distinction is made from the similar get_whale_movements 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description enriches the output semantics even though no parameter-level disambiguation is needed.

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 'Recent smart-money wallet activity — moves by high-scoring funds, market makers, and notable wallets' clearly identifies the resource and defines what smart-money means, which helps distinguish it from generic wallet tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists,' and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_whale_movements, get_wallet_intel, or get_trading_signals. The semantics imply a use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the plan-key requirement and the main contents of the response, but it does not mention auth mechanism, rate limits, data freshness beyond 'latest', or error behavior. This is moderate transparency, not comprehensive.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the essence ('Latest algorithmic buy/sell trading signals'), then adds output specifics and the access requirement. There is no filler or 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 the tool's low complexity, empty schema, and lack of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it conveys what is returned, the source, and a required key. The main gap is the absence of comparison guidance with sibling tools, but that is more of a usage-guideline concern.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. Per baseline rules for 0-parameter tools, the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details; the listed output fields are the only meaningful semantic content.

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 ('algorithmic buy/sell trading signals from the Alpha bot') and specifies the included outputs (entry, stop-loss, take-profit). This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as get_bot_status, get_market_overview, and get_whale_movements.

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 states an eligibility condition ('Requires a Trader or API plan key'), which helps determine whether the agent can call it. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as context that would favor get_market_overview or get_smart_money.

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 of disclosing behavior. It transparently states that the tool returns balances, activity, labels, and a score, and that multichain lookup is supported. However, it does not mention potential caveats such as data freshness, support for unsupported chains, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, though the 'get_*' prefix makes mutation unlikely.

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 consists of two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and data scope, then adds a single useful capability note. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the data categories returned, and a key capability (multichain). It does not explicitly describe the return format, error cases, or chain limitations, but the absence of an output schema makes this less critical, and the given details suffice for basic 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 both address and multichain are already documented. The description's 'Supports multichain lookup' merely restates the schema's multichain semantics without adding format details, constraints, or behavioral nuances beyond what the schema provides, 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 begins with a precise verb-resource pairing: 'Wallet intelligence for a specific address,' which clearly identifies the tool's focus. It lists concrete data types returned (balances, recent activity, labels, smart-money score), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_market_overview or get_whale_movements, which are not address-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 implies usage for retrieving wallet-level intelligence, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like get_smart_money and get_whale_movements could overlap conceptually, but no routing guidance is offered, so agents must infer the boundary from the address-specific phrasing.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns recent large transactions, lists the transaction types, and emphasizes cross-chain coverage and near-real-time intent. It does not disclose caveats like time window, whale threshold, or output structure, but these are less critical for a read-only query 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core definition and follows with a user-oriented use case. Every sentence 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 simple tool with two optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient for selection and invocation. However, there is no output schema and no indication of what fields each movement contains, what 'recent' means, or how 'whale' is defined, leaving moderate gaps for an agent assessing whether the tool can answer a specific question.

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 parameter descriptions in the input schema already explain the chain and limit parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the schema-heavy 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 identifies a specific resource and action: recent large 'whale' transactions (buys, sells, transfers) across 34+ EVM chains. It is specific enough to understand the tool's domain, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_smart_money, whose name suggests a closely related purpose.

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 'Use to see what smart money is doing right now' gives a clear use case and implies the tool is for monitoring recent major moves. However, it provides no guidance on when NOT to use it or how to choose between this and related siblings like get_smart_money or get_trading_signals.

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 behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns a list of supported blockchains with specific fields and a minimum count, which is sufficient for a simple zero-parameter read operation. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but those are not critical for this straightforward listing 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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and the output fields with no wasted words. It earns its place entirely and is easy to parse quickly.

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 list operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool returns and the scope of the blockchain list, leaving no major gap for an agent to call this 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies here because the description correctly indicates this is a no-input listing operation without needing to add parameter details.

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 a specific verb (List) and names the exact resource (the 34+ blockchains CryptoPulse tracks) and the fields returned (id, name, symbol, category). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling data tools like get_market_overview or get_whale_movements, which suggest operational data retrieval rather than a static chain list.

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 a reference/catalog tool, likely useful before querying chain-specific data from sibling tools, but it does not explicitly say when to use it or when not to use alternatives. No exclusionary guidance or direct comparison to sibling tools is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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