memeoracle

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It mentions 'right now' implying real-time results, but provides no detail on safety, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. The behavior is minimally disclosed, which is insufficient for a tool with no other 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 two short, efficient sentences. The first states the core function; the second lists supported chains. There is no filler or redundancy, and the most important information is 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (only two optional params, no output schema), the description conveys the general output (top tokens with momentum scores) and likely use cases. However, it lacks details on result structure, default behavior, and how it differs from related tools, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as both parameters (chain and limit) already have descriptions and defaults. The description adds no extra parameter semantics but doesn't need to, given the thorough 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 what the tool does: shows top tokens by volume with momentum scores on a specific chain. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like momentum_score or token_scan by emphasizing chain-level scouting for Solana, Base, Ethereum, and BSC.

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 suggests a use case (scouting these chains) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives. It implies usage for finding trending tokens on a chain, but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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 any behavioral traits beyond the data list. It does not mention that it may perform live API calls, could be slow, or that it is a read-only operation. For an unannotated tool, this lack of transparency is a 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, telegraphic phrase listing key content categories. It is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The lack of a verb slightly hurts structure but the overall efficiency is high.

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 no-parameter health/info tool, the description provides a reasonable enumeration of what is returned. However, it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or whether it aggregates external API statuses. This is adequate but leaves 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description adds no param information, but that is unnecessary. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits param details 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 lists specific data categories (server health, API connectivity, supported chains, tool list, pricing), making it clear this is a health/info endpoint. It is distinct from sibling analysis tools like rug_check or trending_memes. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'check' or 'return', so its intent is slightly inferred rather than stated directly.

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. It does not mention that it is for diagnostics, checking availability of APIs, or that it should be called before other tools. The description simply enumerates contents without contextualizing 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool is premium, requires x402 payment of $0.05, and new wallets receive 5 free units. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, error handling, or rate limits, though the payment and cost disclosure is significant.

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 well-structured, front-loading the premium/payment notice and then specifying the scoring logic and output format. It is a bit dense with emojis and URL, but every sentence provides relevant 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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return format (score and rating). It also covers the payment requirement and free unit policy. However, it does not clarify the minimal parameters needed for a successful call or potential error responses.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters interact, such as whether 'query' or 'address' is preferred or if 'chain' is required. It relies on the schema's 100% coverage.

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 composite momentum scoring service, listing specific inputs (volume surges, price acceleration, buy pressure, boost activity) and output (0-100 score with COLD/WARMING/HOT/EXPLOSIVE rating). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rug_check or viral_score by focusing on momentum.

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 assessing token momentum but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like viral_score or whale_watch. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools are given, so usage context is only inferred.

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 indicates a read-only discovery operation via 'Discover' and discloses what data is returned (profiles, descriptions, social links) plus the temporal scope (first minutes/hours). It does not mention rate limits or explicit read-only status, but this is reasonably implied.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds valuable temporal context without 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?

For a simple tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description communicates the core purpose and expected output contents adequately. It lacks explicit response format or pagination details, but the given information is sufficient for basic 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?

Both parameters (chain, limit) are fully described in the input schema, covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Discover') and resource ('freshest token launches'), while specifying the output contents (profiles, descriptions, social links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rug_check or whale_watch, which focus on other aspects of token analysis.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when seeking newly launched tokens in their early hours. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives among the 8 sibling tools, though the specific focus on launches is evident.

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 premium cost, x402 payment workflow, endpoint URL, X-PAYMENT header, free trial units, and output structure. This is strong transparency, though it does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only or has other side effects.

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 concise paragraph that front-loads the premium warning, then covers purpose, output, and access details. It is slightly dense but every sentence conveys necessary information without fluff.

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 description covers return values and access mechanism well, but it lacks guidance on which parameters to provide (e.g., query vs. address) and does not detail the 'detailed flags' output. Given no output schema, more specifics 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for chain, query, and address. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is self-sufficient; baseline 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 states the tool performs 'Risk assessment for any token' and enumerates specific analysis components (liquidity depth, age, volume patterns, buy/sell ratio, FDV analysis). It also specifies the output (risk score 0-100 with flags), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like token_scan or health_check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It indicates usage for 'any token' risk assessment, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative sibling tools, leaving the selection logic partially implicit.

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 tool's behavior by listing what it returns (price, liquidity, volume, etc.), which is helpful. However, it does not mention limitations (e.g., supported chains, performance implications, or behavior when no match is found), leaving gaps in transparency. It claims 'any token' without qualification.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose ('Deep scan any token') and then expands with concrete details. No wasted words or redundant information; it is appropriately concise for the tool's breadth.

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 does a good job of indicating what data the tool returns by listing key metrics. It does not explain output structure or potential error cases, but for a straightforward scan tool with three optional parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It could be more thorough about chain support or data freshness, but it still meets the needs of an agent choosing the 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter (chain, query, address). The description adds that search is by 'name, symbol, or contract address,' but this largely mirrors the schema's query and address descriptions. It does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a 'Deep scan' of 'any token' and lists specific data points (price, liquidity, volume, market cap, age, trading activity, DEX info). It uses a specific verb (scan) and resource (token), and the scope is evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rug_check (security) and trending_memes (social) by focusing on comprehensive token 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a broad set of token metrics. It says 'any token' implying it's a general-purpose scanner. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions (e.g., 'use rug_check for security analysis'), so it's clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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 transparency burden. It discloses external sources and the ability to filter by chain, but it does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether it is a safe read-only operation. It's adequate but not richly transparent.

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 purpose and includes the key filter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema documentation, the description provides enough context about the purpose and sources. However, it could be slightly richer by mentioning default behavior or output expectations, but it remains complete for basic 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description only repeats the chain filter and does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states the tool's function: 'Get the hottest trending and most-boosted memecoins right now' with specific sources (DexScreener + CoinGecko). This verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like new_launches or token_scan.

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 discovering current hot memecoins and provides a chain filter, but it does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no exclusions or alternative recommendations, but the context is clear enough.

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 and discloses payment cost, endpoint, header, free units, and output categories. It also implies a read-only analysis via 'analysis' and 'shows' terms. While it lacks return format details, the covered aspects exceed typical transparency for a read-only tool, warranting a 4.

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 moderately concise, packing premium status, data sources, output labels, and call instructions into a few sentences. Emojis and promotional tone add some noise, but every sentence contributes information, earning a 4.

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 the description partially compensates by listing possible result categories. However, it doesn't explain parameter requirements (e.g., whether address or query is needed) or return structure, leaving notable gaps for a 3-parameter tool. Thus, a 3.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, not clarifying optionality or relationships between query/address. Thus, a 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 states the tool performs 'Viral potential analysis' and specifies unique output categories (DEAD, QUIET, BUZZING, VIRAL, MEGA_VIRAL) while naming the data sources (Google Trends + DexScreener). This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like momentum_score or token_scan, achieving high purpose clarity.

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 analyzing viral potential but does not explicitly define when to use it versus alternatives. It provides usage prerequisites (premium payment, endpoint, header) but no context for choosing between sibling tools, scoring a 3 for implied usage without clear 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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool shows who is pumping money, but it does not disclose output structure, data timeliness, sorting, or potential limitations such as pagination or chain-specific behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with zero 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core concept, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value by explaining the signal types and the output focus, making it highly efficient.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the main purpose and result category (who is pumping money), but lacks detail about the exact response format, such as whether results are grouped by signal type or the ordering. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both `chain` and `limit`, covering all parameters at 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score 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 specifies the tool's function: provide smart money signals including whale activity (boosted tokens) and community takeovers (CTO detection). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming its unique focus on whale movements and community takeovers, making its selection unambiguous.

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 identifying whale-driven tokens and community takeovers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is limited to the inferred use case.

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