hederaoracle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the kind of data returned (balance, key type, token holdings) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether errors are possible for invalid accounts, or any other side effects or limitations. The description is a fragment, not a full behavioral statement.

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 extremely concise, using a simple list to communicate the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 lists the main data points returned without explaining the return structure or error handling. It is minimally adequate for an agent to infer the tool's function, but it lacks explicit mention of whether it returns a flat object or something more complex. However, the scope is narrow and the description is not misleading.

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 already provides a complete description of the 'account' parameter with an example format. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but schema coverage is 100%, so the 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 indicates that the tool provides account-level information about a Hedera account, specifically balance, key type, and token holdings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hbar_token_info and hbar_transactions by focusing on account attributes rather than token-specific data or transaction history.

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 simply lists the data fields returned and does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, and there is no 'when to use' language.

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 disclosure. It implies a read-only comparison operation but does not describe output format, data sources, or any side effects, leaving significant uncertainty.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the lack of detail is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the parameter, return values, or any caveats, leaving the agent to guess.

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 description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'min_tvl_usd' parameter at all. The agent has no way to understand how to use the parameter.

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: to compare DeFi yields across Hedera protocols. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like hbar_token_info and hbar_network_stats.

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 mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools. The only implied context is that it is for comparing yields.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description must explain behavior. It only lists the data categories (supply, nodes, consensus info) with no indication of whether this is a read-only call, whether results are cached, or any other operational traits. The read-only nature is implied by 'stats' 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 short phrase, which is appropriately concise for a parameterless tool. It conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise.

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, the description is the only source for expected return content. It names three categories (supply, nodes, consensus info) but does not explain their structure or depth. This is minimally sufficient for basic understanding but lacks detail for nuanced use.

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 an empty object. This achieves the baseline for parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-related details because there are none to add.

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 providing network stats, specifying supply, nodes, and consensus info. This is specific enough to distinguish it from broader overview tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve.'

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 given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives or any context that would help an agent decide between this and hbar_overview or hbar_protocol_health.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether data is cached, real-time, aggregated, or read-only. It also fails to mention any limitations, response structure, or whether the tool performs calculations. The listed categories are content, not 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, compact phrase that front-loads the purpose and lists key topics in order of importance. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a top score for 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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable outline of the data covered (price, TVL, supply, Governing Council, protocols). However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'protocols' entails and does not clarify whether the data is current, historical, or aggregated. It is adequate for a simple overview but has room for improvement.

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 input schema (empty object) already exhaustively documents the interface. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not attempt to explain nonexistent 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 a Hedera ecosystem overview and enumerates specific data categories (HBAR price, TVL, supply, Governing Council, protocols). This distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like hbar_account_info or hbar_network_stats. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'get' or 'list', so it does not fully meet the 5-criteria standard.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the named alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where the overview is preferred over more detailed tools. The word 'overview' implicitly suggests a high-level view, but no explicit comparison or alternative is 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?

The description states the output categories (TVL, audits, risk grade), which gives some idea of the returned data. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention limitations or caveats (e.g., supported protocols, update frequency). This is moderate disclosure but lacks depth.

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 fragment that clearly communicates the purpose and key output fields in a few words. It front-loads the core concept and includes examples with no superfluous text.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It omits usage guidance, detailed parameter semantics, and return structure. It does not explain what 'risk grade' means or whether multiple protocols can be queried simultaneously. The ellipsis suggests more protocols but does not enumerate them.

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 only parameter 'protocol' is a bare string with no schema description. The description provides example values (SaucerSwap, Stader, HeliSwap), offering a clue about accepted inputs. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage, but it does not specify format, case sensitivity, or how to handle unknown protocol names.

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 (protocol health) and specifies the data categories (TVL, audits, risk grade). It names example protocols to clarify scope, but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It distinguishes from siblings such as hbar_protocol_list by focusing on health 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hbar_protocol_list or hbar_defi_yields. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred context, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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 discloses that the output is ranked by TVL, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, it does not clarify the return format, any potential limits, or that it is a read-only operation, though this is a simple list 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key information. Every word contributes meaning without unnecessary 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?

For a simple, parameterless list tool, the description is sufficiently complete—it states the scope ('All Hedera DeFi protocols') and the ordering ('ranked by TVL'). No output schema exists, but the return values are implicitly clear for a ranked list.

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 schema trivially covers all inputs. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 clearly states the resource (Hedera DeFi protocols) and the ranking by TVL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hbar_defi_yields and hbar_protocol_health, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'show'.

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 is purely descriptive with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'supply and risk' without indicating return format, data source, update frequency, or whether any computation is involved. No side effects or limitations are 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 short phrase with no wasted words, but it is underspecified. It is concise but lacks enough substance to guide an agent effectively, making it average rather than exemplary.

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 must provide sufficient context on its own. It omits specific stablecoins covered, risk metrics used, and time periods, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture for selecting this tool over siblings.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or semantics. By the given baseline, 4 is appropriate since no parameter information 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 'Stablecoin supply and risk on Hedera' clearly identifies the tool's domain and scope. While it lacks an explicit verb, the subject matter is distinct from sibling tools like hbar_token_info and hbar_defi_yields, making its purpose reasonably 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 only states the topic, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria without any 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?

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is analyzed (keys, risk scoring) but does not explicitly indicate that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, data freshness, rate limits, or output format. For a risk-analysis tool, this lack of explicit safety/behavioral context is a notable 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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses concise technical terms. The semicolon-separated list is efficient, though slightly fragmented; nevertheless, every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main function, but lacks behavioral details and a clear return-value description (no output schema). It is adequate but not rich; a user knows what the tool does but not what to expect in response or underlying data sources.

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 already describes token_id with an example and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the parameter is self-explanatory and well-documented.

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 HTS token risk analysis, specifying focus areas like admin/freeze/wipe/supply keys and risk scoring. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as hbar_stablecoin_risk, which targets stablecoins specifically. The verb is implicit ('analysis') 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where hbar_stablecoin_risk or hbar_account_info would be more appropriate, nor does it offer any usage context such as prerequisites or typical use cases.

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 says 'Recent transactions' without specifying what recent means, whether transactions are returned in sorted order, pagination limits, or what account format is expected. No details about return values or side effects are given.

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 and free of unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it could benefit from additional details without sacrificing 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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description must explain return values and behavior. It merely states 'Recent transactions' with no indication of what fields are included, how many results are returned, or any other contextual details, leaving the tool under-documented.

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 only defines 'account' as a string, and the description adds only 'Hedera account' as context, which is already evident from the tool name. It does not specify the account format (e.g., '0.0.1234') or any constraints, so the description adds minimal value beyond the 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 'Recent transactions for a Hedera account' clearly identifies the resource (transactions) and the context (a Hedera account), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hbar_account_info or hbar_token_info. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied context is that it deals with transactions, but there is no explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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