baseoracle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, write, or has side effects (e.g., API calls, rate limits). The description only states what action is performed, lacking transparency about behavioral traits.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., verification status, source code, proxy info) or any additional context like supported networks or limitations. For a simple tool, more context is expected.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain the single parameter (contract_address). While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about format, length, or expected input beyond the schema. For a critical required parameter, additional guidance would be beneficial.

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 action ('Verify'), the target ('Base smart contract'), and the specific aspects verified ('source code, ABI, proxy detection on BaseScan'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like base_defi_yields and base_gas, which cover different functionalities.

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 verifying a contract, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, prerequisites, or conditions). No sibling differentiation beyond purpose is 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that results are filtered by TVL but does not reveal whether the tool is read-only, destructive, rate-limited, or any other behavioral traits. The mention of 'top' implies sorting, but this is minimal.

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 very short (one sentence) but under-specified. It lacks critical details about parameters and behavior, so it is not effectively concise—it is merely brief at the cost of completeness. The front-loading is adequate but the content is insufficient.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return format, parameter usage, or any edge cases. For a relatively simple tool, the description fails to provide enough context 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter (limit, min_tvl_usd). 'Filtered by TVL' hints at min_tvl_usd but does not clarify its role or how limit affects output. The agent gets no semantic help beyond parameter names and defaults.

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 the resource (DeFi yields on Base) and mentions filtering by TVL, which gives a general sense of the tool's function. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get'), making the action implied rather than stated. It distinguishes from siblings like base_protocol_tvl (total TVL) and base_overview, but the purpose is somewhat vague.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., base_protocol_tvl, base_overview). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and general topic.

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 full burden. It indicates read-only behavior and cost estimates but does not specify data freshness, update frequency, or granularity. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information ('Base network gas tracker with USD cost estimates'). 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?

Given the input schema has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and a key differentiator. Could mention if it returns current or historical data, but overall sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline for zero parameters is 4. No further detail 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 description clearly states it is a gas tracker for the Base network with USD cost estimates, distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover other aspects like contract verification or yields.

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 use for Base network gas tracking and contrasts with Ethereum mainnet, providing context. No explicit exclusion of alternatives but sufficient for the simple tool category.

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 discloses the metrics covered (ETH price, cbETH, gas, TVL, OP Stack info) but lacks details on data freshness, update frequency, or read-only nature.

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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists what the overview includes. However, it could mention the return format or structure to be fully 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?

No parameters exist in the schema. Baseline score of 4 applies as description adds no parameter-specific info beyond what schema already covers (none 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?

Description clearly states it provides an overview of Base L2 ecosystem with specific metrics (ETH price, cbETH, gas, TVL, OP Stack info), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on individual metrics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like base_gas or base_protocol_tvl. The description implies a broad overview, but no when-not-to-use or alternative instructions 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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavior; it only indicates TVL retrieval but omits details like read-only nature, data format, or limitations.

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 very concise, front-loading the core purpose in one sentence, though it could include a bit more context without becoming wordy.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks examples or explanation of the return structure, which would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying that leaving the parameter empty returns a top-20 list, but lacks format details such as expected protocol names or addresses.

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 retrieves TVL for a DeFi protocol on Base or a top-20 list when empty, distinguishing it from sibling tools like base_defi_yields and base_overview.

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 mentions leaving protocol empty for top-20 list, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it offers none. There is no mention of side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool performs read or write operations, leaving the agent blind to potential impacts.

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 sentence but under-specified; it is concise yet fails to convey essential information. It is not structured or front-loaded with critical details, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 schema coverage, missing output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to use the 'protocol' parameter, what the tool returns, or any error conditions, making it insufficient 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?

The input schema has a single 'protocol' parameter with no description and 0% coverage. The description lists example protocols (Moonwell, Aave, Compound, RWA protocols), hinting at possible values, but does not formally define the parameter's semantics or format, providing minimal added value.

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 lacks a verb, stating only 'Real-world assets and institutional lending on Base' which is a category rather than an action. It fails to specify whether the tool retrieves data, executes transactions, or performs another operation, making the purpose unclear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like base_defi_yields or base_protocol_tvl. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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. The description calls it a 'check' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient given no annotation support.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous words. However, it lacks structure and could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output. It only states the purpose, leaving the agent without guidance on expected results or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool that has two parameters and no schema richness.

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 only 50%: only 'symbol' has a description, while 'contract_address' lacks any. The description adds context about which stablecoins are relevant but does not explain how to use the parameters together or the role of contract_address. It fails to compensate for the incomplete 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 it checks the peg of specific stablecoins (USDC, USDbC, DAI) on Base L2, which distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like base_contract_verify, base_defi_yields, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies peg checking, but does not mention exclusions or when to prefer other tools like base_defi_yields for broader DeFi metrics.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (balance and transactions) without mentioning behavior such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or if the operation is read-only. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about side effects or prerequisites.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and scope. It contains no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool returns. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., units for balance, structure of transactions) and does not address any edge cases or limitations, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0% for the single parameter 'address'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as expected format (e.g., hex with 0x prefix) or example values. With no annotation support, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 provides 'ETH balance, recent transactions on Base L2' for a given wallet address. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like base_gas or base_defi_yields, which focus on other aspects of the Base L2 ecosystem. The verb 'get' is implied, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 that the tool is for retrieving wallet intelligence on Base L2, which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives like base_contract_verify for contract queries. The absence of explicit 'when not to use' guidance prevents a perfect score.

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