bnboracle

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what the verification covers but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential prerequisites (e.g., contract being verified), possible failure modes, or output format. This leaves the agent without crucial behavioral context.

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 wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core function and key aspects in a compact structure, making it 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or its conditions. It only lists features, leaving the output format, potential edge cases, and any preconditions unspecified. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably returns verification details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that contract_address is the address of the contract to verify, without specifying format (e.g., 0x prefix), network specifics, or any constraints. This adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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's function with a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('BNB Chain smart contract'), and lists three distinct aspects (source code, ABI, proxy detection). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like bnb_gas or bnb_defi_yields, which address different concerns.

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 verifying contracts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. It is an implied usage rather than a clear directive.

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?

Without annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by TVL and APY, but does not explain the default sorting order, whether results are live or cached, how 'top' is determined, or any limitations. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that is easy to parse and directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise for the core function, though it omits supporting details that would improve usability.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like, what the filters mean in practice, or how to interpret the results. The single sentence is insufficient for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional inference.

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 mention any of the four parameters (limit, min_apy_pct, max_apy_pct, min_tvl_usd). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, so it entirely fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 identifies the tool as returning 'Top DeFi yield opportunities on BNB Chain' with filtering by TVL and APY. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (e.g., bnb_gas, bnb_protocol_tvl) by focusing on yields rather than gas or aggregate TVL. The verb is implied rather than explicit (e.g., 'list'), but the resource and scope are clear.

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. The description implies usage for finding yield opportunities, but does not mention when to prefer this over bnb_overview or bnb_protocol_tvl, nor any prerequisites or data freshness caveats.

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's basic function as a gas tracker with USD estimates, but does not reveal whether it accesses live data, any limitations, or what 'common operations' encompasses. Minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 conveys the essential purpose without wasting words. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the user the tool provides gas costs in USD, but lacks additional context such as what specific operations are covered or whether data is live. The description could be more complete without being verbose.

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 input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 applies. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since there are none.

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 tool as a gas tracker for BNB Chain with USD cost estimates, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bnb_token_risk or bnb_wallet_intel. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Get') and relies on the noun 'tracker' to imply the action, preventing a perfect score.

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. No mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The context signals list sibling tools, but the description does not reference them or offer any selection 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, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data categories but does not disclose response format, time ranges, or any limitations. For a read-only overview, the basic behavior is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's scope. No superfluous 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 simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete for basic invocation. It lists the key data categories covered. However, it could benefit from a note on how this overview relates to sibling tools, but that is covered by purpose clarity.

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 description is not required to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description makes no irrelevant claims about parameters.

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 an overview of the BNB Chain ecosystem, listing specific metrics (price, gas, TVL, block stats). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects (e.g., bnb_gas, bnb_protocol_tvl) by being a comprehensive summary. However, the verb is implied ('overview' rather than an explicit 'get' or '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use this for a quick summary' or 'use specific tools for detailed data'. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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 alone must disclose behavior. It reveals one behavioral trait (empty protocol returns top-20 list) but omits return format, error handling, case sensitivity, or whether the protocol name must be exact. For a read-only tool this is minimal but functional.

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 brief sentences with no redundancy. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides a key usage hint. Extremely concise and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use case but leaves gaps around return value shape and potential edge cases. It is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully self-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?

The schema provides no description for the 'protocol' property, and the description adds a specific behavioral note: leaving it empty yields a top-20 list. This gives partial meaning, but it does not explain what values are valid (e.g., exact names, slugs, case) or what happens if an invalid protocol is provided.

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 tool as returning BNB Chain DeFi protocol TVL, which differentiates it from siblings like bnb_defi_yields (yields) or bnb_token_risk (risk). However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', making the action slightly implied rather than stated.

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 'Leave protocol empty for top-20 list' provides a clear usage condition for the protocol parameter, but there is no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like bnb_overview or bnb_defi_yields. No exclusions or alternative tool references are 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 full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the check returns current prices, deviation from $1, or any other metric, nor does it mention prerequisites, data sources, or reversibility (though likely read-only). This lack of detail leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's exact behavior.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose and supported symbols. It uses no filler, earning a high score for conciseness, though it could have been more informative without becoming wasteful.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete: it fails to specify what a 'peg check' returns, how results are formatted, or the role of the optional contract_address. For a two-parameter tool, an agent would need more context to invoke and interpret results 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 schema covers one of two parameters: symbol lists the supported coins (USDT, USDC, BUSD, FDUSD, DAI), but contract_address is undocumented in both schema and description. The tool description merely repeats the symbol list and does not explain what contract_address does or how it interacts with symbol. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 performs a BNB Chain stablecoin peg check for USDT, USDC, BUSD, FDUSD, DAI, which is a specific function distinct from the sibling tools (contract verification, yields, gas, overview, protocol TVL, token risk, wallet intel). It explicitly identifies the resource (stablecoin pegs) and the action (check), so an agent can select it for stablecoin peg queries.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs other BNB tools, such as bnb_token_risk or bnb_overview. It implies its use for stablecoin peg checks, but does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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 mentions the tool examines holder concentration and contract info, but does not reveal whether it is read-only, how it obtains data, any side effects, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and key aspects in under 10 words, perfect for quick scanning.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has only one parameter, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the risk assessment result looks like, what 'contract info' includes, or how the output can be used, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently rely on this 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 schema has one parameter, contract_address, with 0% description coverage. The tool description implicitly clarifies that this is the BEP-20 token's contract address, adding minimal context. However, it does not elaborate on expected format (e.g., checksummed, BNB chain) or constraints beyond the schema's type and required fields.

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 (BEP-20 tokens) and the action (risk assessment), and specifies two key facets (holder concentration, contract info). It distinguishes itself from siblings like bnb_wallet_intel and bnb_stablecoin_check, though it lacks an explicit action verb, phrasing the purpose as a noun phrase.

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 bnb_contract_verify or bnb_defi_yields. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer suitable usage.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, input format requirements, or how results are paginated. For a wallet query tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core functionality ('BNB balance, recent transactions'). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no annotations, the description must explain return values and side effects, but it only provides a high-level summary. The tool is simple, but missing details like transaction count limits, order, and the exact response structure make it incomplete for an agent to invoke and interpret results reliably.

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 explicitly explain the 'address' parameter beyond implying it is the wallet address. It does not specify address format (e.g., BEP-20), requiredness, or how the parameter relates to the output. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid inputs confidently.

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 BNB balance and recent transactions for a wallet, which is specific and informative. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bnb_overview or bnb_gas by focusing on wallet-level intelligence. However, the word 'intelligence' is slightly vague, so it doesn't fully achieve a 5.

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 alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like bnb_overview or bnb_token_risk, explicit guidance would be helpful but is entirely absent.

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