cryptofeed402

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the endpoint is gated behind x402 payment and returns payment requirements plus a URL rather than the data directly.

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

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

Two short sentences, no filler, with the paid-access constraint and the returned payload both front-loaded. Every clause earns 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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does name the payload (x402 payment requirements and URL). It leaves the post-payment flow implicit, but for a zero-parameter paid endpoint that 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are needed.

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

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

States a specific resource and scope: the most extreme Hyperliquid funding rates 'right now'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_price and get_history, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against.

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 'Paid endpoint' prefix usefully signals a cost consideration before invocation, and 'right now' implies a real-time snapshot use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance and no hint about what the caller must do after receiving the payment requirements.

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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: this call does not return content directly but returns x402 payment requirements and a URL, which materially changes how an agent must handle the result. It stops short of explaining the payment flow or retry semantics.

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 paid nature and the return contract front-loaded. Every clause earns 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 no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description carries most of the burden. It discloses the key surprise (payment requirements instead of content) but omits the payment/retry mechanics and any detail on the 'to' parameter, leaving an agent under-informed about the actual call flow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys that from/to form a date range, but adds no format, boundary, or open-endedness detail (e.g., whether 'to' is optional and defaults to now). The schema's regex does document the date format, so the gap is partially covered elsewhere.

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?

Names a specific resource ('archived briefs') and scope ('for a date range'), and states that it is a paid endpoint returning x402 payment requirements plus a URL. This distinguishes it reasonably from get_latest_brief and get_sample_brief, though it never names those siblings 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?

The word 'archived' implies use for historical rather than current briefs, and 'Paid endpoint' signals a cost consideration, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., get_latest_brief for the current brief). Usage is left to inference.

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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds materially beyond that: this call is gated behind x402 payment and returns payment requirements plus a URL, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a paid resource.

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 access model and payload format front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (paid, twice-daily, JSON+markdown, x402 requirements) carries 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does: JSON plus markdown content, alongside x402 payment requirements and a URL. The only gap is the failure mode when payment is absent, which is a minor omission for a zero-parameter read tool.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It adds no parameter detail, but none is required.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('the full latest twice-daily crypto research brief') and frames it as the paid tier, which cleanly separates it from siblings get_sample_brief, get_teaser and get_pricing. An agent can identify both the content and the access model without opening the schema.

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 label 'Paid endpoint' establishes the selecting condition versus the free preview siblings, and naming the x402 payment flow tells the agent this call is a paid acquire. It stops short of explicitly stating 'use get_teaser/get_sample_brief for a free preview' or what to do if payment is declined.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds materially beyond them: this is a paid endpoint, it requires an x402 payment, and it returns payment requirements and a URL rather than the data itself. That non-obvious behavior is the most valuable sentence here. No cost, rate-limit or retry detail, so not a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the paid nature and the data payload, ending with the actionable payment instruction. 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 does explain that the response contains x402 payment requirements and a URL rather than price data, which is important. But it omits the actual x402 flow — what the agent should do with the URL, whether the data arrives after payment, or the response shape — leaving a paid-tool interaction under-specified.

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 'symbol' parameter has an enum but 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'For one coin' establishes cardinality but adds nothing about symbol syntax, case, or what values beyond the enum map to; the self-documenting enum keeps this at baseline 3.

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 ('Coin lookup'), and enumerates the exact data returned (perp mark, funding, OI from Hyperliquid, OKX spot) for one coin. It is clear on its own, though it never differentiates itself from the sibling get_pricing, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 'Paid endpoint' framing implies the condition for choosing it — you need price data and are willing to pay via x402 — and 'pay with your own x402 client' tells the agent what is required. However, no alternative is named despite siblings like get_pricing and get_extreme_funding, and no when-not-to-use guidance is 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the tool is free, prices are denominated in USDC on Base, settlement is via x402, and a payTo address is returned. It stops short of describing the response shape or caching/refresh 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?

A single front-loaded line beginning with 'Free:' puts the most decision-relevant fact first with no filler. It is a sentence fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly softens clarity, but nothing 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: cost of access, the currency/chain of the quoted prices, and the returned fields. Only the response format and the distinction from get_price are left unstated.

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 beyond what the empty schema already conveys. The listed contents (prices, network, payTo) are effectively return-value information, which is useful but not parameter semantics.

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 exact resource and its payload: current per-call prices, network, and payTo address, including the settlement rail (USDC on Base via x402). It is clear what you get, but it never distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling 'get_price', which risks confusion between pricing metadata and an asset price.

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: labeling it 'Free' suggests it is the tool to call to learn what a paid call costs before spending, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as get_price. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-schema context: the content is delayed, from the previous edition, and omits OI, sentiment and markdown formatting — real limitations an agent needs to know. It does not address freshness lag magnitude or rate limits, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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 dense sentence: the free/tier framing leads, limitations follow in parentheses, and the routing instruction closes. Every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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 does the work of characterizing the returned payload (a trimmed, delayed brief lacking OI/sentiment/markdown), which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. Missing only peripheral details like delay duration or refresh timing.

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 are zero parameters, so per the baseline rule this scores 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by not describing any inputs.

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 a specific resource (a delayed, trimmed sample of the twice-daily crypto brief) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling it is not: get_latest_brief. An agent can tell exactly what this returns and how it differs from paid siblings without opening any schema.

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 a clear selection condition — 'Use to evaluate before paying for get_latest_brief' — which routes the agent between the two tools. It does not mention other plausible alternatives such as get_teaser or when this tool is the wrong choice, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's one behavioral addition is the 'Free' tier marker, which is genuinely useful for an agent reasoning about cost/auth. It says nothing about data freshness, staleness, or whether the teaser is truncated relative to the paid brief.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant token ('Free') followed by the payload contents. 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it does list the three content groups. The remaining gap is relational: it never clarifies how the teaser relates to get_latest_brief or get_sample_brief, which an agent choosing among seven similar getters would need.

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; schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description instead spends its words on return content, which is the right allocation here.

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 a concrete content bundle (brief teaser text, Hyperliquid extreme funding at 8h-equivalent rates, BTC/ETH/SOL prices with 24h change), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, say how this differs from the near-identical siblings get_latest_brief or get_sample_brief, leaving the 'teaser' distinction implicit.

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 leading 'Free:' implies this is the unauthenticated/preview entry point, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_latest_brief, get_sample_brief, or get_extreme_funding, so usage must be inferred.

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