Oblique Markets

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Real-time crypto prices from multiple sources' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, has rate limits, or any other behavioral implications. Cost is noted but not as a behavioral trait.

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 very concise with a single sentence plus cost information. It is front-loaded and free of wordiness. However, it could be slightly more structured to include key details like return value format.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description still lacks information about the return value format, whether it returns a single price or multiple, and any example usage. This is a significant gap for an agent to understand the tool's output.

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% as the parameter 'symbols' has a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter description, which is already sufficient for understanding. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Real-time crypto prices from multiple sources', which directly aligns with the tool name 'crypto_price'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'token_metrics' and 'wallet_analyze' by focusing specifically on price 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a cost of $0.02/call via x402, but does not specify supported tokens, possible limitations, or conditions under which the tool should or should not be used.

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?

Discloses pricing ($0.01 charged, $1.00 authorized) and payment method (Solana fallback), but omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, latency, or error 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 sentences cover purpose and pricing with no waste. Information is front-loaded and efficiently presented.

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?

Provides basic info for a simple 3-parameter tool but lacks output format description. Given no output schema, the description should hint at what the response contains, which it does not.

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 67% schema coverage, the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The max_tokens parameter has no description in schema or description, and tool description does not offer details 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?

Clearly states the tool performs LLM inference via ZenMux with 86 models, specifying the action and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools which are all crypto-related.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool; the context from sibling tools (crypto) implies usage for LLM tasks, but no alternatives or prerequisites 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists output content and pricing, lacking details on side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to understand operational implications.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence capturing the core purpose, plus a pricing note. No extraneous words; information is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the types of analytics returned (holder distribution, DEX volume, liquidity). However, it omits details on return structure, pagination, or how data is formatted, leaving gaps for complex usage.

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 50% (only token_address has a brief description). The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing coverage. It does not clarify the meaning or usage of chain or token_address.

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

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

The description clearly states it provides token analytics including holder distribution, DEX volume, and liquidity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crypto_price, wallet_analyze, etc., which focus on different aspects. A higher score would require a more explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch'.

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 tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions pricing, not contexts or exclusions. Sibling tools suggest different use cases, but this tool's description does not clarify its specific niche.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions cost and 'via x402' but does not disclose safety (e.g., read-only vs. destructive), permissions, rate limits, or side effects. 'Analyze' implies non-destructive 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?

Short, front-loaded sentence covering action, resource, and outputs. Cost note is extra but valuable. No wasted words, though could be more structured.

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

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

No output schema, so description should elaborate on return structure (e.g., format of balances, transaction history, risk score). It does not, leaving the agent with vague expectations. Missing details like time range or data freshness.

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 50% (wallet_address has description, chain does not). Description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema; cost info is unrelated. Does not compensate for low coverage.

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

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

Clearly states verb (Analyze), resource (Ethereum/Base wallet), and outputs (balances, transaction history, risk score). However, does not distinguish from sibling tool 'wallet_spy', which likely has overlapping functionality.

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 tool vs. alternatives (e.g., wallet_spy). Mentions cost ($0.08/call) but does not state prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions real-time nature and cost, but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, accuracy, or what the risk score entails. Acceptable but not comprehensive.

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, efficient sentence that conveys key information without any fluff. It includes essential elements like function, outputs, and cost, earning 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?

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and outputs. However, it could mention if there are limits on result size or pagination for transactions.

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 50% (only address has description). The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or default behavior for the chain parameter. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs real-time wallet surveillance and lists specific outputs: recent txs, token transfers, DEX swaps, risk score. It also mentions cost, which adds context. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'wallet_analyze'.

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 monitoring a wallet but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The sibling list is present but offers no comparative direction.

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