The River

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context that these are token-underlying stock quotes and the batch ceiling, but says nothing about refresh behavior, staleness, 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 tight sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the limit trailing. The parenthetical earns its place by tying the data back to the tokens, though the phrasing is slightly indirect.

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 lookup with a closed-world annotation and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and the batch cap. Only ticker format and freshness behavior remain unspecified, which 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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It restates the schema's maxItems=12 as 'Up to 12 tickers' but gives no ticker format or identity hints (e.g., symbol vs. name), leaving a real gap for the one input.

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

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

The description names the concrete resource (listed stocks and the tokens they track) and what is returned (last US market price plus market status), so an agent can tell what it fetches. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling list_stocks, and the 'fair_value' name/title sits awkwardly against the plain 'last market price' content.

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 only guidance is the batch limit ('Up to 12 tickers'). There is no statement of when to use this versus list_stocks or the other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions 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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned records, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or rate limits, so it adds only modest context on top of the structured fields.

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 tight sentences with the resource and its identifying fields front-loaded, followed by the filtering capability. No filler or redundancy.

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

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

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return fields (ticker, token symbol, issuer, chain, trade link) and how filtering works for a simple two-parameter read tool. Pagination behavior for a potentially long listing is the only notable omission.

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 only 50%: 'query' is documented but 'chain' has an enum with no description. The description compensates by explaining what 'query' actually matches against (ticker, symbol or name) and that both filters can be combined ('and/or'), which is meaning beyond the raw 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 ('Tokenized stocks listed on The River') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent immediately knows this is a catalog listing rather than a valuation or holdings tool. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, but the resource is distinctive enough to separate it from fair_value, strategy_link, trade_link and wallet_holdings.

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 'Filter by chain and/or a search query' implies the intended usage and that the two filters are combinable, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of what to do when no filters are supplied (all 0 params are optional). Adequate but thin.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating the user reviews on The River, signs in their own wallet, and 'nothing happens until they do' — valuable non-execution context beyond the annotations. It also adds validation constraints (usd buy-only, 6 vs 18 decimals) that the annotations do not cover.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the parameter rule, then the user-consent behavior. Dense but each sentence carries information; only the opening fragment 'A pre-filled River trade link.' is slightly terse.

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, the description adequately conveys the return (a best-price link opening the cheapest issuer). It explains buy semantics well but leaves sell-mode behavior (e.g., whether usd is allowed on sell) unstated for a tool whose side enum includes 'sell'.

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 83% and the schema only says 'Plain decimal' for usd/qty, but the description adds real meaning: usd is buy-only settlement-stablecoin with max 6 decimals, qty is tokens with max 18 decimals, and exactly one must be supplied. That mutual-exclusion rule appears nowhere in 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 names the specific resource (a pre-filled River trade link) and the operation that produces it, so an agent knows this tool generates a shareable order link rather than executing a trade. It stops short of distinguishing itself from strategy_link, the other link-generating sibling, leaving that comparison to 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?

It gives concrete selection rules: exactly one of usd or qty, and 'a buy by ticker with usd (no address or chain)' as the path that yields a best-price link. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over strategy_link or list_stocks, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by labeling the data 'public onchain data' and the profile link 'read-only', but says nothing about rate limits, error cases, or which chains are included.

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?

A single information-dense sentence with the primary payload (balances) front-loaded and the secondary payload (profile link) trailing. It is slightly awkward as a verbless noun phrase, but no sentence is wasted.

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 exists, so the description correctly enumerates what is returned (balances plus a profile link). Annotations cover safety and the schema covers the sole parameter; only the set of supported chains and pagination/response shape remain unstated, which 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage ('0x... wallet address'), the schema already carries the semantics. The description's 'any wallet's' adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description names the resource precisely (stock-token and cash balances per wallet) and adds scope ('every chain The River serves') plus a secondary return ('read-only River profile link'). It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like fair_value, but the resource is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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 such as fair_value or list_stocks, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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