Crypto Pulse

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

With annotations only declaring read-only/open-world, the description adds critical behavior: the $0.02 USDC cost on Solana, x402 payment flow, that the call returns payment requirements and an HTTP URL, and that data is fetched by GET after payment. That is substantial context beyond structured fields.

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 paid purpose and cost, then explains the payment handoff and free alternative in a compact form. The x402/Solana USDC detail is repeated across sentences, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 paid two-step external HTTP tool with no output schema, it explains cost, payment requirements, URL return, and alternative preview. It still leaves the exact post-GET payload unspecified, but the key invocation path is covered.

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% and the single optional asset enum is fully documented in the schema. The description itself does not add syntax or meaning for the asset parameter, so baseline 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?

States a specific paid live 'full pulse' and enumerates the four data sources it combines, so the resource is concrete. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_market_sample as the free preview, though it does not explicitly route around get_market_spots.

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 clear alternative for a free preview ('call get_market_sample first') and the paid condition is front-loaded. It stops short of spelling out all sibling choices, notably when get_market_spots alone would suffice.

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?

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, it discloses that data may be up to 15 minutes old, that this is a free sample, and that the JSON shape matches the paid /v1/pulse endpoint. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to decide whether freshness matters.

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 front-loaded with the free-sample purpose, then lists contents, staleness, and the alternative in a compact set of sentences. 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?

With no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so by enumerating the included data and noting the shared JSON shape with the paid endpoint. Staleness is also disclosed, making the definition complete for 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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema is empty and requires no parameter explanation, but the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 this is a free crypto market pulse sample and enumerates its contents: spots, Fear & Greed, Hyperliquid funding, DefiLlama TVL/yields, and a plain-English summary. It explicitly contrasts with the paid sibling get_market_pulse, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting 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?

It directly tells the agent to use get_market_pulse for live paid data, implicitly framing this tool as the free/stale-data alternative. The condition selecting the alternative is explicit, leaving little to inference.

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 only declare readOnly and openWorld, so the description carries the real burden and delivers: the call is PAID ($0.005 USDC) and returns payment requirements plus an HTTP URL for x402. What it does not disclose is the payment mechanics — whether the tool itself settles payment or just hands back a challenge, and whether repeated calls are charged each time.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, what it costs, and which sibling to use instead. Cost and the paid flag are front-loaded in capitals so a scanning agent cannot miss the billing implication.

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, and the description compensates by naming what comes back (payment requirements + HTTP URL for x402). Combined with the pricing disclosure and sibling routing, an agent has enough to decide and call correctly; only the x402 handshake sequence remains implicit.

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 says nothing about arguments and instead spends its words on cost and return shape, which is the right allocation for a parameterless tool.

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 ('live BTC/ETH/SOL/HYPE spot prices') with an explicit scope qualifier ('only') and a price point. An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_market_pulse (broader market data bundle) and get_market_sample (free preview).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer get_market_pulse when you also need Fear & Greed, funding, or DeFi' names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it, and 'Free preview: get_market_sample' gives the zero-cost fallback. Both siblings are addressed with concrete selection criteria.

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