Galaxy Digital MCP by usefulapi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the full record is returned ("with all its fields") and names the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist or whether related entities are expanded.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the endpoint mapping. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, and return breadth ("all its fields"). Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 single agency_id parameter is already documented including its numeric pattern. The description only restates "by id" and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one agency by id") and implicitly distinguishes itself from list_agencies by the singular "one agency" phrasing. It does not name the sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching exactly one record by identifier. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over galaxydigital_list_agencies or what to do if the id is unknown.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the full record ('all its fields') is returned, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist or what the response envelope looks like.

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, front-loaded with the retrieval semantics and followed by the underlying endpoint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and that all fields are returned, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and response shape.

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% for the single benchmark_id parameter, including a numeric pattern constraint, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'by id' merely restates it without adding format or validation nuance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one benchmark by id with all its fields,' which clearly signals a single-record fetch. The singularity and 'by id' phrasing implicitly separate it from galaxydigital_list_benchmarks, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for retrieving a known benchmark id rather than enumerating benchmarks. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_benchmarks, nor any prerequisite or error-condition 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description usefully states the response includes all fields plus the backing endpoint (GET /events/{id}). It says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown id, expansion/related-entity behavior, or whether the payload differs by permission.

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, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded. The endpoint sentence is marginally redundant for an agent but cheap and occasionally useful.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does confirm that all event fields come back, which matters. It still leaves the shape of the return value and edge-case behavior unexplained, so it is adequate rather than 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 100% for the single event_id parameter, including a numeric pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates "by id" and adds no format, sourcing, or validation insight beyond it. Baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get one event") plus the lookup key and the guarantee that all fields are returned, and the underlying endpoint is named. It is clear against list_events by name alone, but the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 single-object scope implies "use this when you know the event id, use list_events otherwise," but that guidance is left to the reader's inference. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a non-mutating read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that all fields are returned and gives the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about error behavior (missing id), permissions, or pagination/expansion options — modest added value over annotations.

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 with the primary behavior front-loaded; no filler. The API endpoint clause is marginally redundant for an agent but cheap and factual.

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 trivial single-id read with no output schema, the description gives the required parameter meaning, confirms all fields are returned, and pairs with readOnlyHint to convey safety. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3; the schema already documents hour_id and its numeric pattern. The description only restates that lookup is by id and adds no format or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one hour") and scopes it to a single record by id, which implicitly contrasts with the list_hours sibling. It stops short of naming the alternative tool, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

"by id" implies the precondition that the caller already has an hour id and wants one record rather than a listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of galaxydigital_list_hours as the alternative, and no guidance on what happens if the id is unknown.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the concrete endpoint (GET /needs/{id}) and confirms all fields are returned, but says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist (error vs empty) or about authorization requirements.

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 with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and return scope. The endpoint reference is compact and useful for developers.

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 trivial single-record lookup with one fully documented parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the essentials, including what is returned. A note on behavior for missing ids would make it 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 100% with a single required need_id parameter that already carries a pattern constraint. The description only echoes 'by id' and adds no format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one need by id") and clarifies the return scope with "with all its fields." The singular "one need" implicitly separates it from galaxydigital_list_needs, though the sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular 'one need by id' suggests direct lookup rather than listing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus galaxydigital_list_needs or the related list_need_questions/list_need_responses tools. No prerequisites or error conditions 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?

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that it returns the full record ('all its fields'), plus the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about behavior when the id is missing or not found.

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 with the core behavior front-loaded and no filler. The API endpoint sentence is marginal value for an agent but cheap.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented parameter, the description says what comes back ('all its fields'), which is the main gap since there is no output schema. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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 id pattern documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3; the description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond what the parameter definition already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (qualification) and scopes it to one record via id, which factually separates it from list_qualifications. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 'one qualification by id' implies when this tool applies (single-record retrieval when the id is known) versus the list tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a non-mutating read, so the description doesn't need to carry the safety profile. It adds a small amount of context — "with all its fields" signals a full record rather than a projection — and cites the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about not-found behavior or error cases.

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 with zero waste; the purpose statement is front-loaded and the endpoint citation is a compact, useful appendix. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only real gap is guidance on sourcing the response_id or handling a missing record.

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

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

There is a single required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the pattern constraint documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the id format or where to obtain the id, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one response by id") plus the scope "with all its fields," which clearly separates it from the list_responses sibling. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"by id" implies this is the single-record lookup versus galaxydigital_list_responses, but the description never states when to prefer each or what happens if the id is unknown. Usage is inferable from the sibling naming rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description is only expected to add context. It does contribute the fact that all fields are returned in full and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, or response envelope.

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 with zero waste; the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the API endpoint detail. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema required, this is nearly complete. The only modest gap is not specifying the failure case for a nonexistent id or that the response is a single object rather than a 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single team_id parameter, including a numeric pattern, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format or sourcing guidance (e.g. where to obtain a team id).

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get one team by id') plus the scope of the return ('with all its fields'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_teams family. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, so sibling differentiation is only implicit through the get_/list_ naming convention.

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?

'by id' implies this is the single-record lookup rather than the list endpoint, so the usage context is inferable from the sibling naming. However, no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of galaxydigital_list_teams as the alternative, and no note about what happens if the id is unknown.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that all fields are returned and names the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements, 404/not-found behavior, or missing-record handling.

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, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded before the endpoint detail.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what is fetched and how it is identified. Only minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and authentication.

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% and the single user_id parameter is documented with a numeric pattern in the schema. The description adds only 'by id', which merely restates the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one user by id') plus scope ('with all its fields'), which clearly separates it from list_users siblings. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation by name, keeping it at 4.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' (single-record lookup), but the description never says when to use this versus galaxydigital_list_users or what to do if the id is unknown. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a raw endpoint string and says nothing about pagination behavior, default result limits, sort order, or whether inactive records are excluded by default (a meaningful behavior only hinted at inside the schema).

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, front-loaded with the purpose; nothing is padded. The 'API: GET /agencies' clause is low value for an agent but not harmful.

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 five-parameter paginated list tool with no output schema, the description omits anything about result shape or that the endpoint is paged (cursor-style via since_id / per_page). The schema covers the mechanics, but an agent gets no signal that paging is expected on large result sets.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, including the since_id paging idiom and the show_inactive enum. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the agencies') and clarifies the domain term with '(partner organizations)'. It does not explicitly separate itself from the singular get_agency or the nearby list_user_agencies/list_agency_managers siblings, but the collection-vs-record distinction is inferable.

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 versus galaxydigital_get_agency (single record) or galaxydigital_list_user_agencies (filtered by user). The agent must infer the routing from tool names alone.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's main addition is the REST endpoint, which reinforces read semantics but reveals no pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an acceptable but thin layer of extra 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the concrete endpoint. Nothing redundant enough to cut, though the endpoint line is marginally ornamental for an agent that already has the tool name.

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 read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, most of what an agent needs is present. However, with no output schema the description never indicates what a "manager" record contains, so the agent cannot anticipate the response shape.

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% and the single parameter is documented as "Agency id." The description adds only that the id selects exactly one agency via the path /agencies/{id}/managers; no format or validation detail beyond the schema pattern. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: "List the managers attached to one agency." That is enough to distinguish it from get_agency (single agency detail) and the plural list_agencies, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to avoid.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement — you call it when you have an agency id and want its managers. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_user_agencies or get_agency, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /benchmarks), which is mild context, but says nothing about default ordering, pagination requirements, or whether the full collection is ever returned at once — the traits an agent most needs beyond the annotation.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The trailing 'API: GET /benchmarks' is marginally useful rather than essential, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 five optional filter parameters, no required fields, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is adequate to invoke the tool. However, with no output schema there is nothing describing what a benchmark record contains or how paging terminates, so the agent is left to discover return shape empirically.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, including the since_id paging idiom and the show_inactive enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning at all beyond this, making a baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the site's benchmarks') and defines the domain term with a parenthetical ('hour or activity goals'), which an agent could not infer otherwise. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from galaxydigital_get_benchmark or galaxydigital_list_benchmark_users, but the list-vs-get distinction in the name carries most of the weight.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the collection-listing counterpart to get_benchmark. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_benchmark_users or whether pagination is mandatory, so the agent must reason about the sibling set itself.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete API endpoint and the association scope, but does not mention pagination, auth requirements, or return shape.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the useful API endpoint reference.

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 read-only list tool with one fully documented parameter and readOnlyHint=true, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It could mention return/pagination behavior, but no output schema exists, so this is a minor gap.

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%, and the schema documents benchmark_id with a numeric string pattern. The description adds only the phrase 'one benchmark' and the endpoint path, which is marginal 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 states a specific verb and resource: list the users associated with a benchmark. It implies filtering by benchmark, which distinguishes it from the broader list_users sibling, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'users who have one benchmark' implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over list_users or other list tools. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds only the underlying endpoint (GET /causes), with nothing about result volume, ordering, caching, or whether all causes are returned in one call. Some added context, but thin given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. The 'API: GET /causes' line is boilerplate but cheap and mildly useful for tracing; nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what a 'cause' contains or how many are returned — and it says nothing about shape, ordering, or volume. For a trivial zero-param list tool this is survivable, but it leaves a real gap.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-collection read with no filtering options to explain.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the causes available on the site'), which unambiguously identifies the resource among the many list_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_* or other list tools, but the resource noun 'causes' is unique enough that an agent can route correctly.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about whether the result is paginated or complete. The only signal is the implied 'list' vs 'get' naming convention, which the description never states.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /clusters), which is useful for inference about side-effect-free behavior, but says nothing about the shape or size of the collection returned or whether results are ordered/limited.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the endpoint for technical grounding; there is no filler. The only minor redundancy is that the first clause largely restates the title 'List clusters'.

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 trivial parameterless read tool this is close to sufficient, and annotations cover the safety dimension. However, with no output schema present, the description does not describe what a 'cluster' contains or what the response looks like, leaving the agent guessing about return values.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by not mentioning any filters.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("clusters ... on the site"), so an agent immediately knows this is the collection endpoint rather than an entity fetch. It does not name a sibling, but the list_/get_ naming convention among siblings makes differentiation obvious without extra prose.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'List the clusters available on the site' suggests an unfiltered collection read, but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over galaxydigital_get_team or other list_* tools, nor any mention of pagination or whether all clusters are always returned. Minimum viable but leaves the agent to infer the calling conditions.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's main added value is disclosing the underlying endpoint (GET /events) and the shape of returned records (dates, location, RSVP setting). It says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, or ordering, which matters for a paged list endpoint.

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 clauses, resource and content description front-loaded, endpoint stated last. Efficient with essentially no filler; the API line is mildly redundant but useful for traceability.

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 four-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to address it. The only real gap is pagination/result-cap behavior, which the schema partially implies.

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 four parameters carry full schema descriptions (100% coverage), including paging semantics for since_id and datetime formats for since_created/since_updated. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('events') with a parenthetical clarifying what an event record contains (dates, location, RSVP setting), which separates it from galaxydigital_get_event's single-record read. It does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, but the resource scoping is 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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and by the pagination/filter parameters, but the description never says when to prefer this over galaxydigital_get_event or how it relates to agency-scoped listings. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the returned field set and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, volume, or authentication requirements beyond what the schema implies.

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 with zero filler; the purpose and returned fields are front-loaded and the endpoint trailer is compact.

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, naming the returned fields (user, need, hours, date, approval status) fills a real gap, and the schema fully covers all five optional parameters. Only minor omissions remain, such as how pagination continues and whether results are sorted.

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% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of returned fields overlaps with output rather than adding parameter semantics, and it says nothing about how the date filters combine.

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?

It uses a specific verb ('List') with the resource ('logged volunteer hours') and enumerates the fields returned (user, need, hours, date, approval status), plus the API endpoint. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling galaxydigital_get_hour, but the 'list' vs 'get' naming convention makes the intent 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of galaxydigital_get_hour or when to prefer filtered queries. It never mentions that filtering is possible via since_created/since_updated or when to include inactive records, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the schema.

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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description bears less burden. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /impacts) but says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether the list is paginated or complete.

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 with the purpose front-loaded; nothing is padded. The API endpoint line is low-value for an agent but is a single clause and does no harm.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description is minimal but not broken. It does not indicate what an 'impact area' record contains or how the results relate to the sibling taxonomy lists, which an agent would need to choose 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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (impact areas) plus the scope 'available on the site', so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling list_* tools (list_causes, list_interests, list_clusters), leaving the agent to infer the distinction between these taxonomies.

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 call this versus list_causes, list_interests, or list_clusters, and no stated prerequisites or typical workflow. The only implied usage comes from the word 'available', which does not tell the agent what the data is for.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the underlying REST endpoint (GET /interests), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or caching 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the purpose front-loaded before the endpoint detail. Nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally say what an interest object contains (id, name, etc.) or at least that the full site-wide list is returned. For an otherwise simple zero-param read tool this is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The site-scoped framing is consistent with a parameterless global listing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "List the interests available on the site." The name and description make clear it is the interests counterpart to siblings like list_causes and list_impact_areas, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from those taxonomies.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "list" and the site-scoped qualifier. There is no statement of when to prefer this over related lookups (e.g., list_causes, list_clusters) or any prerequisite 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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the underlying REST path (GET /needs/{id}/questions), which is mildly useful corroboration, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens when a need has no questions.

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, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. The endpoint mention is compact and adds context cheaply.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. A brief note on what a returned question contains or whether the list is paginated would close the remaining gap, since no output schema exists.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines need_id with a numeric pattern. The description reinforces the scope ('for one need') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making 3 the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom questions that volunteers answer') scoped to one need, which is clear and non-tautological. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby galaxydigital_list_registration_questions sibling, so sibling differentiation is only inferable from the 'for one need' scope.

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 scope ('for one need') implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative such as list_registration_questions for event-scoped questions. Usage is left to inference from the need_id parameter.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden — but it adds almost nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no statement of what a response record contains or whether it requires permission on the need. The REST endpoint citation is minor extra 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with no wasted clauses. The trailing 'API: GET /needs/{id}/responses' is of marginal use to an agent but is compact and does hint at the underlying resource shape.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to call it correctly. It leaves the return shape and pagination unstated, which is acceptable but not complete for an agent needing to know how many responses come back.

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% and the single need_id parameter is documented in the schema with a pattern constraint. The description's 'of one need' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the volunteer responses (sign-ups) of one need'), which is clearly distinct from galaxydigital_get_response (single) and galaxydigital_list_responses (unscoped list). It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as galaxydigital_list_responses or galaxydigital_get_need. The only context is the phrase 'of one need', which implies scoping but gives no selection rules.

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 readOnlyHint already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that results include title, agency, dates, and volunteers needed, and identifies the underlying endpoint, but it does not discuss pagination behavior or how the various filters interact beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Three short sentences with no wasted language: returned fields, filters, and endpoint are each stated once. The list behavior is front-loaded and the description is easy to scan.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to understand what is returned and how to narrow results. The schema carries the detailed parameter documentation, so the description is mostly complete, though it could mention paging context more explicitly.

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%, so parameter meaning is already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions agency, title, and status filtering, but it does not add syntax or interpretation beyond the schema and omits the date filters and show_inactive 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List volunteer needs (opportunities)') and names the returned fields (title, agency, dates, volunteers needed). It is clearly a list operation and distinct from the singular 'get_need' sibling, though it does not explicitly mention that sibling.

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 says the tool can be filtered by agency, title, or status, which implies its use for finding needs. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as get_need or list_need_responses.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the domain gloss on what a qualification is; it does not disclose pagination behavior, the default of hiding inactive records, or what the result set looks like. For a list tool with five filter params, that is thin additional 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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero redundant text. It is efficient, though terseness edges toward under-specification rather than optimal structure.

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?

All five parameters and their semantics are covered by the schema and the read-only nature is covered by annotations, so the description need not repeat them. However, it omits pagination guidance and the inactive-record default, which are the non-obvious behaviors an agent must know to page correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter (per_page, since_id, show_inactive, since_created, since_updated) documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how any of these are used, but the schema already carries that burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List qualifications') and adds domain scope ('that volunteers can hold'), which distinguishes it from galaxydigital_get_qualification (single record) and galaxydigital_list_qualification_users. The endpoint reference reinforces the resource. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this versus galaxydigital_get_qualification or galaxydigital_list_qualification_users, and no note that the list is paginated so paging parameters matter. Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'qualifications that volunteers can hold'.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the underlying endpoint (GET /qualifications/{id}/users), but says nothing about pagination, result size, or what happens when the qualification has no holders.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the endpoint as a secondary detail. No filler, though the API line is redundant for most agent decisions.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations declaring safety, the description plus structured fields are sufficient to call it correctly. The only gap is return/pagination behavior, which is modest given no output schema exists.

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 a single required qualification_id that is already documented and pattern-constrained. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the users who hold one qualification'), which is distinguishable from galaxydigital_list_users (all users) and galaxydigital_list_qualifications (the qualifications themselves). It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 'who hold one qualification' implies the use case (reverse lookup from qualification to members), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as list_users or list_qualification_users.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying API endpoint (GET /questions/registration), which is mild but real context. It does not say whether results are paginated, ordered, or scoped to the authenticated site.

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, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence is a bare endpoint reference — compact and mildly useful for debugging, though not essential.

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?

A zero-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint annotation needs little explanation, and the description covers what is listed. The absence of an output schema means return shape is not explained, and the overlap with list_need_questions is unaddressed, but overall it is sufficient for correct 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The phrase 'of the site' hints that scoping is implicit from the API credentials, which is a useful clarification for a parameterless call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the custom registration questions of the site.' An agent can tell it is a read/list operation over registration questions. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling galaxydigital_list_need_questions, leaving ambiguity about which question set is which.

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 versus galaxydigital_list_need_questions or the other list_* siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about when registration questions are relevant versus need questions.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful context by naming the record shape returned (user, need, shift, status) and the backing endpoint, which matters since there is no output schema. It omits ordering behavior, default page size, and what 'status' values exist.

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, front-loaded with the resource definition, with the endpoint tacked on at the end. No filler, though the 'API: GET /responses' clause earns little for an agent that only calls the tool.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and readOnly annotation, the definition is adequate but thin: no output schema and no statement of how results are ordered or shaped, and no disambiguation from the near-duplicate list_need_responses sibling.

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 all five parameters including the show_inactive enum and since_id paging semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List volunteer responses') and disambiguates the domain term as 'sign-ups to needs', plus names the fields returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling galaxydigital_list_need_responses or galaxydigital_get_response, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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 list_need_responses, get_response, or the other list_* tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of when the paging parameters should be preferred.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the underlying endpoint (GET /teams) and nothing else: no pagination behavior, no default page size, no indication of whether inactive teams are excluded by default or how large a result set can be.

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, purpose first, with no filler or repetition. The "API: GET /teams" clause is of limited value to an agent and is the one part that doesn't fully earn 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?

With a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint, an agent can invoke this tool correctly, so it is minimally complete. But for a five-parameter, cursor-paginated list tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about paging strategy or the shape of what comes back.

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%, so all five parameters (including the exclusiveMinimum cursor semantics and the Yes/No enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "List volunteer teams", which is a real improvement over the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish this from galaxydigital_get_team (single team) or say anything about scope, so sibling differentiation is left to the naming convention alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative get_team tool, and no note on when the since_id/since_created filters are appropriate. An agent must infer all of that from the tool name and schema.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the underlying endpoint (GET /users/{id}/agencies), which is redundant with the annotation's meaning, and says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an empty follow list looks like.

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 that are front-loaded with the purpose. The trailing API endpoint sentence is mildly redundant but not harmful.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it doesn't explain the returned collection or how this differs from the general list_agencies, leaving the agent to infer.

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% and there is a single required user_id, so the schema does the work. The description's phrase 'one user' reinforces the scope but adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the agencies') and scopes it to a single user via 'that one user has fanned (follows)'. It does not explicitly name the sibling list_agencies to contrast with, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required user_id makes it clear this returns a specific user's followed agencies. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_agencies or list_agency_managers, nor any exclusion 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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the records contain personal data and callers should minimize the fields/filters requested. It also discloses the backing endpoint (GET /users). It stops short of describing pagination behaviour or defaults, which the schema partially covers.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its filters, followed by the single most important caveat (personal data). No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 13 parameters, no output schema and only readOnlyHint for annotations, the description covers purpose and privacy adequately but never says what a returned user record looks like or how results are ordered/paged beyond the schema's since_id hint. Adequate to call correctly, but not complete for a wide, PII-bearing list endpoint.

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%, so all 13 parameters are already documented with examples and enum values in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only re-summarizes three filter families (status, name, email) and omits the date, paging, and 'show_inactive' semantics, adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List site users (volunteers)') plus the filterable dimensions (status, name, email), which is a real improvement over the bare title 'List users'. It does not explicitly differentiate from near-neighbours such as galaxydigital_get_user or galaxydigital_list_user_agencies, so an agent must infer the boundary from the list/get naming convention.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like galaxydigital_get_user (single lookup) or galaxydigital_list_user_agencies, and no prerequisites or paging guidance. 'Ask for only what the task needs' is a data-minimization instruction about how to call it, not when to choose it, so it does not satisfy the usage-guideline burden.

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