smartmoneyoracle

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behaviors. It mentions components like momentum and whale activity but does not explain data freshness, rate limits, error handling (e.g., unknown tokens), or whether the tool is read-only. Lacks depth for a scoring 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?

Description is a single sentence with 14 words, very concise. Every word adds value, but it could be structured slightly better (e.g., 'Input a token name/symbol; returns a rating from COLD to EXPLOSIVE'). Still, no 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?

Given the simple input (one string), no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not specify the output format (just rating? additional data?) or behavior for invalid inputs. Adequate but with gaps.

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% for the single parameter 'query'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema description, which already states 'Token name or symbol (required)'. 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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates an alpha score based on specific factors and outputs a rating from COLD to EXPLOSIVE. It uses a specific verb ('scoring') and resource ('alpha'), and it distinguishes from siblings like chain_flows or health_check which focus on different aspects.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. It implies usage for token analysis but does not state when alternative tools (e.g., chain_flows) might be more appropriate. Missing prerequisites or context.

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 clearly implies a read-only query for TVL metrics, which is inherently non-destructive. No contradictions.

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 short sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with key purpose and a clarifying example.

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?

Indicates output includes chain names and TVL amounts, but lacks detail on units or data freshness. Without output schema, more explicit return format 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but baseline 4 applies as it is unnecessary.

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?

Specifically states it shows TVL by chain, which is a clear verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings like stablecoin_flows and flow_scan by focusing on chain-level capital allocation.

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?

Implies use when wanting to know cross-chain TVL distribution, but no explicit when-not or alternatives. Sibling tools are not mentioned to guide selection.

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 states the tool provides current TVL and flows but does not mention data freshness, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of such details leaves ambiguity about its 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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes no extraneous information. Every sentence is essential 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?

The description covers the main outputs but omits response format details, which is important since no output schema is provided. It also leaves ambiguity about the required status of the parameter (schema says 'required' but context signals indicate 0 required params). 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter description already explaining 'protocol slug' with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'current TVL, 7-day inflow/outflow, chain breakdown' for a protocol. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (protocol TVL). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'protocol_flows' or 'chain_flows', which may have overlapping purposes.

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 capital movements in a protocol, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases compared 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any required authentication. The listed return fields are vague and do not clarify the exact response structure or potential errors.

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—a single sentence with four key items. However, it could benefit from a clearer structure or a brief introductory verb. It is front-loaded but slightly elliptical.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It lists four outputs but lacks details on their format or completeness. For a simple health check, it is minimally adequate, but more context (e.g., response format) would improve usability.

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

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

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It correctly conveys that no inputs are 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 lists specific resources (server health, API connectivity, tool list, pricing) indicating what the tool checks, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like flow_scan or top_whales. However, it lacks a clear verb ('check' is implied) and reads more as a list of outputs than a concise action statement.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools. The context suggests it is a general health check, but the description does not make this explicit.

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 burden. It discloses the kind of data returned (TVL, changes, categories) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Minimal 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 sentence with no wasted words, providing essential information efficiently.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a simple tracking purpose, the description covers the key aspects (examples and metrics) adequately.

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

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

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially.

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 tracks institutional-grade protocols and lists specific protocols and metrics (TVL, 1d/7d changes, categories). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like alpha_signal or chain_flows.

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 institutional protocols but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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 describes the tool as a radar of 'smart money flows' and 'right now,' but lacks details on data freshness, pagination, read-only status, rate limits, or authorization needs. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. There is no unnecessary information, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating gaining/losing).

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, the description should explain return format. It mentions gaining and losing TVL, but does not specify what fields are returned (e.g., protocol name, TVL amount, change). Parameter coverage is good, but the overall description lacks completeness about outputs.

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 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context for filtering by category but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It repeats 'Filter by category' which is already in the schema. 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 identifies the tool as showing top protocols gaining/losing TVL, using 'smart money flow radar' and mentions filtering by category. It distinguishes from siblings like chain_flows or stablecoin_flows by focusing on protocol-level TVL changes.

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 seeing protocol TVL trends and filtering by category, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. There is no guidance on 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'leading market indicator' but does not disclose data freshness, update frequency, sources, or coverage limitations. Behavioral traits are 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load key information. Every phrase adds value, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., list format).

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 parameters, no output schema, and simple informational query, the description sufficiently covers what the tool provides. Lack of documentation on data sources or update cadence is acceptable for a straightforward metric 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?

Input schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), so description does not need to explain param details. It adds value by describing output content (total supply, per-coin, chain distribution).

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

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

Description clearly states the tool tracks stablecoin supply and lists specific metrics: total supply, per-coin breakdown, chain distribution. Distinguishes from siblings like 'chain_flows' or 'protocol_flows' which focus on different flow types.

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?

Implied usage for stablecoin supply analysis, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'flows' or 'chain_flows'. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or what actions it performs. It only notes the data content.

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 states the tool's purpose and primary filter. Every word adds value with no repetition or 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?

Given the low complexity (two simple parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately conveys the tool's function and filter capability. It could mention the return format but is sufficient for agent 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% with descriptions for both parameters (chain and limit). The description adds 'Filter by chain' confirming the chain parameter's purpose, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 provides a specific verb ('current') and resource ('whale activity across DeFi') and lists distinct data types (top boosted tokens, community takeovers, CoinGecko trending), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like chain_flows or institutional.

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 whale activity but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when not to use it or 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.