bnboracle

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions three verification aspects but does not state potential side effects, network dependencies, or what happens if the contract is not found. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 with a single sentence that covers the core purpose. It is well-structured but sacrifices detail 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 no output schema and one required parameter, the description should explain return values and behavior on failure. It does not, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 description does not explain the contract_address parameter beyond its name. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no detail on format (e.g., hex, checksum) or which specific BNB Chain network (BSC, opBNB) is assumed.

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 action ('Verify') and resource ('BNB Chain smart contract'), and lists specific aspects (source code, ABI, proxy detection). It is distinct from sibling tools like bnb_token_risk or bnb_defi_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bnb_token_risk might also involve contract analysis). There is no mention of prerequisites or context for when verification is appropriate.

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 behavioral traits. It mentions filtering but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or how results are sorted. The 'Top' qualifier is vague.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and filtering criteria.

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 insufficient. It lacks details on the return format, default sorting, and how 'Top' is determined, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains that results are filtered by TVL and APY, which maps to min_tvl_usd and min/max_apy_pct, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide details on each parameter's meaning or allowed values.

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 purpose: returning top DeFi yield opportunities on BNB Chain, with explicit mention of filtering by TVL and APY. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bnb_contract_verify and bnb_gas, which focus on different aspects of the BNB ecosystem.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools have distinct names, the description does not provide explicit usage context or exclusions.

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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, its data source, or any rate limits. It only states the high-level function.

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 effectively communicates the tool's purpose and output without any unnecessary 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential information. However, it lacks specifics on what 'common operations' are or how estimates are computed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it could have mentioned that no inputs are required. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 BNB Chain gas tracker with USD cost estimates for common operations. This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like bnb_contract_verify or bnb_defi_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 usage for tracking gas fees but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any contextual prerequisites. The lack of parameters makes context straightforward but the guidance is minimal.

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 mentions the data returned (price, gas, TVL, block stats) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, caching, or any side effects. For a zero-parameter tool, the disclosure is adequate but 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key terms (BNB Chain ecosystem overview, price, gas, TVL, block stats). No unnecessary 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an overview tool. However, it lacks details on data sources, update frequency, or specifics about block stats. Still, it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 4 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 it provides an 'overview' of the BNB Chain ecosystem, listing specific data points (BNB price, gas, TVL, block stats). This distinguishes it from specialized sibling tools like bnb_gas or bnb_protocol_tvl, which 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?

The description implies usage when a general overview is needed rather than a single metric from siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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. It only states the basic function and a usage hint, but lacks details about data freshness, scope (e.g., historical vs. current TVL), or any side effects. The minimal info is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 with one sentence, front-loading the core purpose and a key usage hint. It earns its place, though additional context on output format would not be excessive.

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 input (1 optional param) and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It tells the purpose and a usage hint, but does not describe return value structure (e.g., list of objects, numeric value) or any other behavior, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter, but the description adds value by explaining that leaving protocol empty returns a top-20 list. This clarifies the optional nature and default behavior, going beyond the raw 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 the tool provides BNB Chain DeFi protocol TVL, with a specific verb-resource combination. The hint about leaving protocol empty for a top-20 list distinguishes its behavior from siblings like bnb_defi_yields or bnb_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 gives an explicit usage hint for when the protocol parameter is empty, implying when to use it for a top-20 list vs. a specific protocol. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the sibling tools.

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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'peg check' without specifying what output to expect, whether data is real-time, historical, or aggregated, or any side effects. This 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 sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists the relevant stablecoins. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain the returned data format, how data is updated, or any constraints. For a tool that assesses peg status, the missing detail on output and update frequency makes it incomplete.

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 coverage is 50% (symbol has a description, contract_address does not). The description adds meaning by listing the supported symbols, which aligns with the symbol parameter. However, it fails to explain the contract_address parameter or its interaction with symbol. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 purpose: checking the peg of BNB Chain stablecoins (USDT, USDC, BUSD, FDUSD, DAI). The verb 'check' and the specific resource 'stablecoin peg' distinguish it from sibling tools like bnb_gas or bnb_defi_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 usage when stablecoin peg information is needed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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 and no description of side effects, read-only status, or data sources, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits. The risk assessment nature implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 wasted words, but it sacrifices 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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter details, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, return format, or constraints.

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 0% and the description only implies 'contract_address' is the subject of the assessment via 'contract info', adding minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 BEP-20 token risk assessment focusing on holder concentration and contract info, which distinguishes it from other BNB tools covering gas, yields, TVL, 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bnb_contract_verify or bnb_wallet_intel, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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 carry behavioral info. It only states the outputs (balance, recent transactions) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or defines 'recent'. It lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is appropriately short for the tool's simplicity, though adding structure (e.g., listing outputs) could improve readability.

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?

Although the tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), the description lacks details like what 'recent' means, how many transactions are returned, whether the data is real-time, and the return format. It feels incomplete for an agent needing precise context.

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 describes a single 'address' parameter but the description does not add any meaning such as format (e.g., 0x-prefixed), validation rules, or how the address is used. With 0% schema coverage from descriptions, the tool completely misses the opportunity to clarify 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 that the tool provides BNB balance and recent transactions for a wallet, which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name, but the name 'wallet_intel' implies wallet-focused functionality distinct from other tools like 'bnb_contract_verify' or 'bnb_token_risk'.

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 compared to alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for general wallet overview whereas 'bnb_token_risk' is for risk assessment. There are no when-not-to-use instructions.

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