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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the authentication requirement and what the output contains, but does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, freshness, or return format. It provides some meaningful context without being fully transparent.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds output details and the access requirement, making every sentence informative.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is returned, from which source, and what key level is needed. Minor missing details like response shape or data freshness would be nice, but the description is largely complete for invocation purposes.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully describes the input surface. The description has no need to explain parameters, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 resource ('trading signals'), the source ('Alpha bot'), and the key data fields ('entry, stop-loss, take-profit'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_bot_status and get_market_overview, which serve different data products.

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 an access prerequisite (Trader or Api plan key) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor explains scenarios where get_trading_signals is preferred over tools like get_smart_money or get_whale_movements.

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 full burden. It only mentions 'recent' and 'large' transactions, but doesn't disclose the time window, sorting, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. It also doesn't clarify whether results are live or delayed.

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, front-loaded with the core functionality and a concise usage hint. No wasted 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate the structure of results (e.g., list of transactions with amounts, addresses, timestamps). It doesn't. For a simple tool this is a minor gap, but it's still incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (chain and limit) with clear examples and defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 recent large whale transactions (buys, sells, transfers) across 17 EVM chains, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_market_overview or get_trading_signals, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides a use case ('Use to see what smart money is doing right now'), which implies when to use it, but does not contrast it with sibling tools like get_smart_money or get_trading_signals. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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 behavioral burden. It states the fixed scope ('17 blockchains') and the returned fields, and 'List' implicitly conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation. It doesn't add extraneous behavioral detail, but it is sufficient for such a simple no-parameter 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 with zero filler. It packs the action, scope, exact count, and field list into minimal words, earning every character.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what will be returned and which fields to expect. There are no hidden inputs, side effects, or return-format gaps that would prevent correct 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the schema already fully declares that no input is required.

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 resource ('17 blockchains CryptoPulse tracks') and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, name, symbol, category). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, each of which targets a different kind of data.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs the list of blockchains CryptoPulse tracks, with no ambiguity about purpose. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed given the tool's distinct list-only role among the siblings.

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