suioracle

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 does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what data it observes, how it presents results, or any side effects. 'Monitoring' implies passivity but 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 concise, single phrase with no redundant content. 'Bridge flow monitoring for Sui' front-loads the core purpose without wasting 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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema. It does not clarify what bridge flows are, what specific metrics are provided, or how the output is structured. An agent would be uncertain what data to expect from this tool.

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

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

The input schema has zero parameters and additionalProperties is false, so there is nothing to explain. Following the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 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 states 'Bridge flow monitoring for Sui' – a specific resource (bridge flows) and an actionable purpose (monitoring). It is distinct from sibling tools like sui_dex_volume or sui_defi_yields, though 'flows' remains somewhat ambiguous (e.g., transaction volume vs liquidity movements).

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, what it should be used for, or when to prefer alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's purpose without mentioning data sources, filtering, output format, or any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy, making it maximally concise and easy to parse.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description fails to clarify return values, how yields are aggregated, or the role of min_tvl_usd. This is inadequate for confident 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?

The sole parameter min_tvl_usd is entirely unexplained in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. Since the description does not compensate, users cannot determine the parameter's meaning or effect.

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 'Compare DeFi yields across Sui protocols' uses a specific verb ('compare') and clearly identifies the resource ('DeFi yields'), making it distinct from sibling tools focused on bridge flows, DEX volume, or protocol health.

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 comparing yields but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like sui_protocol_health or sui_dex_volume. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions.

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 does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention data freshness, units, or whether the volume is historical or current. The minimal phrase provides insufficient transparency.

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 exceptionally brief and front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant words. However, it is so terse that it verges on under-specification, slightly reducing its effectiveness as a standalone explanation.

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 tool, the description still leaves major gaps: it doesn't specify the return format, time range, or output structure. Since there is no output schema to compensate, the description is incomplete for an agent to predict what data it will receive.

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 trivially complete. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as there is nothing further to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics because none exist.

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 the tool provides DEX volume data for Sui exchanges, which is distinct from sibling tools like sui_defi_yields or sui_overview. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'lists', making it a noun phrase rather than a full 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or context, leaving the agent without decision-making support to select this tool over siblings.

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 of safety disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the fields to be returned are listed. However, it does not mention what happens if the object is not found or any potential errors, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter, and return fields. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing the returned fields. It lacks error-handling or edge-case details, but for tool selection and invocation, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only says 'by ID', which identifies object_id as the identifier, but does not specify format, constraints, or any additional semantics beyond the field 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'Sui object details' with lookup by ID, listing the key fields (type, owner, version). This clearly distinguishes it from the protocol and DeFi-focused sibling tools.

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

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

The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is used when you have an object ID and need its details. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but the context is fairly clear given the distinct resource type compared to siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the list of included metrics, which is useful, but does not elaborate on data freshness, aggregation, or whether the output is a simple snapshot or a detailed report. This is a read-only overview, so the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but more contextual detail would improve transparency.

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 then concisely lists the included metrics. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what the tool returns by listing the key ecosystem metrics. It lacks explicit mention of output format or data recency, but for a simple overview tool, this is a minor gap and the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies. No additional information is needed.

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 Sui ecosystem overview, enumerating the specific data points it covers (SUI price, TVL, protocol count, validators, transactions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrower domains like bridge flows or DEX volume.

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 a high-level ecosystem snapshot but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the more specific sibling tools. The presence of sibling tools covering individual metrics suggests a general use case, but no direct exclusions or alternatives are 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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. While it mentions the output data (TVL, audits, risk grade), it does not disclose how the data is sourced, whether it is real-time, or any limitations like update frequency. This is insufficient for a tool that appears to provide aggregate risk assessments.

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, front-loaded fragment that communicates the core purpose in just a few words. It uses a list format to convey key outputs and examples without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description partially covers the return content but omits critical context such as usage scenarios, data freshness, or how to interpret risk grades. The lack of usage guidelines and behavioral details leaves the description inadequate for confident tool selection.

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% schema description coverage, the description must explain the 'protocol' parameter. It provides a few example protocol names (Cetus, NAVI, Scallop, Bluefin), which help clarify the expected input format, but it does not define whether the value should be a canonical name, symbol, or address, nor does it list all valid options.

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 focus on protocol health with specific outputs (TVL, audits, risk grade) and examples of covered protocols. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sui_defi_yields (yields) and sui_dex_volume (volume) by emphasizing health metrics, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 sui_protocol_list or sui_defi_yields. The description only lists example protocols, leaving the agent to infer its specific role without clear exclusions or 'use instead' directives.

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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists protocols ranked by TVL but does not describe the return format, potential pagination, or any other behavioral traits. The context added is minimal beyond the core 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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no filler words or redundant information, making it perfectly sized and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential function but lacks specificity about the output format (e.g., whether it returns TVL amounts, protocol names only, or additional metadata). This is adequate but leaves room for the agent to infer return details.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The description is not lacking in this dimension.

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 returns all Sui DeFi protocols ranked by TVL. It uses a specific resource (Sui DeFi protocols) and scope (ranked by TVL), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on flows, yields, volume, or other specific data.

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for obtaining a TVL-ranked protocol list, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like sui_overview or sui_defi_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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Stablecoin supply and risk' is a noun phrase that reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, output behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 brief but under-specified; it reads as a fragment rather than a concise explanation. It provides minimal information and would not help an agent understand the tool's purpose.

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 input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must be self-sufficient. It only names a topic and does not explain what the tool returns, what 'risk' entails, or how it relates to other Sui tools.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is no schema gap to compensate for.

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 names the domain ('Stablecoin supply and risk on Sui') and distinguishes it from siblings by topic, but lacks any verb or action (e.g., 'get', 'list', 'analyze'), leaving the tool's exact function vague.

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 siblings like sui_overview or sui_protocol_health. There is no mention of context, alternatives, 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, data freshness, or any potential side effects. The term 'overview' implies a read operation, but this is not made explicit or expanded upon.

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 primary purpose ('Validator overview') and efficiently enumerates the content areas. There is no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable summary of what is included, but it lacks detail about the output format (e.g., whether it returns a count, a list, aggregated metrics) and any usage context. Given the simplicity, it is minimally sufficient but leaves room for interpretation.

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 baseline score is 4. There is nothing to add beyond the schema, which is already empty. The description does not mention parameters, which is acceptable in this case.

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's focus as a validator overview, listing specific data points (count, stake, top 10, commission rates, APY). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sui_defi_yields or sui_protocol_health which cover different resources, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'.

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

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any particular use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability. Given sibling tools with overlapping 'overview' concepts, this is a gap.

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