CryptoBoss

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or modifies state. The cost hint '$0.05' is useful but not clarified. No mention of authentication requirements (API key is required by schema but not described).

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?

Extremely concise with clear topic and cost hint. No unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices behavioral and parameter details, which limits its usefulness but does not detract from conciseness.

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

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return format, prerequisites, and parameter usage, making it insufficient for effective agent selection.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain parameters beyond the chain default. 'address' and 'api_key' are not described. The mention of audit aspects (liquidity, honeypot) does not map to any 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 clearly states the tool performs a 'deep contract audit' listing specific risk factors (liquidity, holder risk, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_approvals or get_token_holders.

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. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., blockchain network) or situations where it should not be used. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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. The description mentions a cost ($0.05), which is a behavioral trait, but fails to disclose other aspects such as whether the tool is read-only, has rate limits, or requires specific permissions. This insufficiently compensates for the lack of 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?

A single, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose and key outputs. No unnecessary words.

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

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main analysis points. However, it lacks information about return format or additional behavioral traits, leaving some gaps.

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% (only mint described). The tool description adds context about what mint address yields (analysis fields), partially compensating. No additional info for api_key.

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 explicitly states the tool performs deep analysis of a Solana token, listing specific attributes (mint authority, freeze authority, supply, decimals, metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_contract or check_approvals.

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 token analysis but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only that the operation costs $0.005, but fails to state whether it is read-only, what authentication is required (only implied by the api_key parameter), or how errors are handled. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds a notable constraint (cost). However, the brevity sacrifices important details, making it efficient but not fully informative.

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, no annotations), the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., balance amount, currency) and any other behavioral nuances. It currently lacks this information, leaving the agent uncertain about the output and usage context.

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

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

The input schema has a single required parameter 'api_key' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameter's purpose or expected format, leaving the agent without guidance on what value to provide.

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 explicitly states the action ('check') and the resource ('an agent's CryptoBoss API balance'), providing a specific verb+resource pair. The tool name and description clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'check_approvals' and 'check_usage' by targeting a distinct resource (balance).

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 mentions a cost of $0.005, which hints at a usage constraint but does not explain prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where it should be avoided in favor of other tools.

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. It mentions cost and risk categories but does not disclose if it is read-only, requires permissions, or produces side effects—critical gaps for safe invocation.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded with purpose; the cost notation adds value. However, it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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 simple schema and no output schema, the description lacks essential details like parameter formatting and expected output structure, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.

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% and description provides no explanation of the two parameters (address, api_key), leaving their formats and purposes entirely unspecified.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks token approval risks, listing specific risk types (infinite approval, spending limits, dangerous functions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_contract or check_usage.

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; lacks any context about prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not disclose whether it is destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words.

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

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

For a simple check tool with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details and parameter context that would help an agent use it correctly, especially given the extensive list of sibling tools.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'api_key'. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, failing to explain expected format, constraints, or purpose.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks API key balance and usage, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('API key balance and usage'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other data like prices, categories, or alerts.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases beyond the basic function.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a cost ($0.02) but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. More context is needed.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the cost. It could be improved with structure, but it is efficient.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover how to use the parameters or what the output looks like, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (vs, coins, api_key) or their defaults. This is a critical gap for agent invocation.

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 a specific verb ('comparison') and resource ('multiple coins'), and lists the metrics included (price, market cap, volume, 24h change, ATH). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_coin (single coin) or get_price (single 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?

The description implies usage for side-by-side comparisons but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. There are no exclusions or context cues.

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 cost of $0.005, a behavioral trait not in annotations. But fails to mention irreversibility, required authentication (api_key), or return values.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence, no fluff. However, lacks structure like separate sections for usage, parameters, or examples.

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, no annotations, and missing parameter details. For a mutation tool, essential information like return value, error cases, and prerequisites is absent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%; parameters api_key and alert_id have no descriptions. The tool description does not clarify their meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 'Delete a price alert by ID', defining verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_alerts (read) and set_price_alert (create). However, no mention of success/failure behavior.

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 like get_alerts or set_price_alert. Implies usage for deletion, but no exclusion criteria or 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the cost of $0.005 per call, which is useful, but it fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether data is paginated.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose. However, it is too terse and omits important details that could be included without sacrificing brevity.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It only states 'list all active price alerts' without describing the response format, fields, or pagination, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 should compensate but does not. The single parameter api_key is self-explanatory from the schema, but the description adds no additional meaning or context for its use.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists all active price alerts, distinguishing it from siblings like set_price_alert and delete_alert. It is specific and not a tautology, but it could mention the scope or filtering options.

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. Sibling tools exist for setting and deleting alerts, but there is no explicit instruction on context or prerequisites.

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 exist, so description must disclose behaviors. The '$0.03' note is ambiguous (possible cost, but not stated explicitly). No mention of read-only nature, rate limits, or return structure.

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 short (one line), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It front-loads the purpose but omits critical information, making it ineffective.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover return values, usage context, or behavioral details. It is severely incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters (coins, api_key). It adds no value beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess their 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 clearly states the tool scans price differences between CEX and DEX markets, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_price or get_coin. However, the output format is not mentioned.

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 like get_price or market_correlation. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that no API key is needed, but omits details such as rate limits, pagination, number of categories returned, data freshness, or whether the data is free. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is meaningful, achieving high information density.

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 zero annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It explains the core output (top categories by market cap) and auth requirement, but could elaborate on the number of items or sort order. For a simple tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema describes the api_key parameter as 'Optional — for billing'. The description adds value by clarifying that no API key is needed for core functionality, reinforcing the optional nature and reducing ambiguity for the agent.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns top crypto categories by market cap, specifying a clear resource and sorting criterion. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_top (which focuses on coins) and trending_categories (which implies recency).

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 notes 'no API key needed', implying usage without authentication. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like trending_categories, and does not mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It notes that no API key is needed, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, it is reasonably transparent.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Detailed coin info') and lists specific data points. Every word serves a purpose, no 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?

Given the simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and key data fields. It doesn't describe return format or error handling, but for a coin info endpoint, it is adequately complete considering the lack of output schema.

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% (only api_key has a description). The description adds value by stating that no API key is needed, complementing the schema's optional note. But it doesn't elaborate on the id parameter format or usage, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'detailed coin info' and lists specific items like price, ATH, supply, categories, and social. This verb+resource combination is distinct from siblings such as get_price or get_price_summary.

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 getting detailed coin info and mentions 'no API key needed', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit usage 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?

No annotations provided; description does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, cost implications beyond '$0.02', or side effects.

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?

Extremely short but insufficiently informative. Conciseness is undermined by lack of necessary detail; not every sentence earns its place because it's missing essential 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, tool definition is incomplete. Agent lacks information on return format, required authentication, and proper 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 0%; description adds no meaning to parameters such as sort, chain, limit, or api_key. Agent gets no help understanding 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?

Description states it retrieves liquidity pools across DEXs, which is clear but minimal. Does not distinguish from siblings like get_defi_yields, which may also involve pools.

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 such as get_defi_tvl or get_defi_yields. Lacks context on best use cases.

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 the full burden. It only mentions a cost ($0.02) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The api_key parameter implies authentication, but that is already in 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?

Extremely short but lacks structure. It front-loads a minimal purpose statement but omits essential details. Some conciseness is good, but not at the expense of completeness.

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

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

For a tool that produces a 'breakdown,' the description is insufficient. No output schema, no details on what the breakdown includes, and no parameter documentation. It leaves the agent entirely guessing.

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%, and the description does not explain the purpose or format of the 'slug' or 'api_key' parameters. The user must guess what a valid slug is.

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 says 'DeFi protocol breakdown with chain TVL,' which indicates a specific verb and resource, and notes one output aspect (chain TVL). It is clear but does not fully distinguish from similar siblings like get_defi_tvl or get_defi_pools.

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 such as get_defi_tvl or get_defi_yields. No prerequisites or context provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions cost and ranking, not behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling. The api_key requirement is implied by schema but not clarified.

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?

Extremely short (two fragments) but under-specified. It lacks structure like parameter explanations or usage examples, making it incomplete rather than concise.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain chains, limit behavior, output format, or authentication, severely hampering agent understanding.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to parameters ('chain', 'limit', 'api_key'). It doesn't explain defaults or valid values, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.

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 'Protocols ranked by TVL,' which specifies a verb (ranked) and resource (protocols by TVL). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_defi_protocol' or 'get_defi_pools' by focusing on ranking, but could be more explicit about 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_defi_protocol' for single protocol details) or prerequisites like authentication. The '$0.02' hint suggests cost but lacks 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It mentions a cost of $0.02 per call, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose if the tool is read-only or any other behavioral aspects like rate limits or data freshness.

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 short and concise, but it omits important details. While brevity is good, it sacrifices completeness. The single sentence structure is efficient but insufficient.

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 and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, pagination, or typical use cases, making it hard for an AI agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, yet description does not explain parameters like 'chain', 'limit', or 'minApy'. It mentions APY and TVL, loosely suggesting the meaning of minApy, but not sufficiently. Without parameter descriptions, the agent may misinterpret how to use them.

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 specifies it covers DeFi yield farming with APY, TVL, and protocols across 200+ chains, distinguishing it from siblings like get_defi_pools (pools) and get_defi_tvl (TVL only). However, it is somewhat generic and does not explicitly state that it returns yield 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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_defi_pools or get_defi_tvl. No context on prerequisites or use cases.

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 description adds that no API key is needed, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, no other behaviors (rate limits, destruction, etc.) are disclosed. With no annotations, the description partially fills the gap.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It could be expanded slightly to cover parameters, but it is not overly verbose.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description mentions some return fields (volume, trust score, country) but not the full structure. It does not mention pagination or the effect of the limit parameter. It is adequate but has gaps.

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

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

The input schema has 2 parameters (limit, api_key) with 50% coverage (api_key has schema description). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. It fails to explain the limit parameter or how api_key affects behavior.

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 returns exchange listings with volume, trust score, and country. The verb 'listing' and resource are clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_price or get_summary, but those are distinct in purpose.

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 this tool can be used without an API key, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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. Only mentions cost ($0.005). Does not disclose whether it is read-only, rate limits, authentication details beyond the schema, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral information.

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?

Very short (5 words + cost), but overly terse. Loses points for missing parameter and usage guidance. Structure is front-loaded with purpose, but conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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

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

Given no output schema and incomplete parameter info, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the return format, how to use the limit parameter, or what 'history' entails. Adequate only for the simplest understanding.

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?

Description provides no details about the two parameters (limit, api_key). Schema has 0% description coverage, so description should compensate but does not. 'With history' loosely hints at the limit parameter but is insufficient.

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 it retrieves the Fear & Greed Index with historical data. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_price or get_social_sentiment. However, could be more specific about the returned data (value, classification).

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 cost hint ($0.005) is present but does not explain usage context or prerequisites. Missing explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or the fact that a fee of $0.005 may be charged. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or 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?

The description is very short (two sentences), but it lacks essential details. Conciseness here is due to under-specification rather than efficient communication. It could be improved by adding context without increasing length significantly.

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 is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of the $0.005 cost, or any limitations. More information is needed for the agent to use the tool 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 input schema has one parameter 'api_key' with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what the api_key is, how to obtain it, or any constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate.

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 Ethereum gas data including low, average, fast, and base fee, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_gas_all', which might also provide gas information.

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 like 'get_gas_all' or 'get_network_health'. The description does not specify any prerequisites or context for use.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Multi-chain gas tracker' and '$0.01', leaving out key behaviors such as what data is returned (e.g., current gas prices, historical?), whether authentication beyond api_key is needed, rate limits, or output format. The cost hint is useful but insufficient for full transparency.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at two short phrases, but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the limited content does not adequately inform the agent. The structure is not front-loaded with the most critical information beyond the core purpose.

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

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

Given the tool handles multi-chain gas tracking (complex topic), has no output schema, and requires an api_key, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, chain specifics, cost model details, and any usage context. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should provide substantial compensation, 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'api_key' has no description in the schema. The tool description also fails to explain its purpose or format. The only parameter is important for authentication, yet the description provides zero semantic value about it.

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 'Multi-chain gas tracker' clearly states the tool's purpose of tracking gas fees across multiple blockchains. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_gas' which likely covers a single chain. The cost hint '$0.01' adds context. This is a specific verb-resource combination with implicit 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_gas' or other network tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, preferred use cases, or exclusions. The only contextual clue is 'Multi-chain' which weakly implies usage when multiple chains are needed, but this is not explicit.

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 no API key needed, which is helpful, but lacks other behavioral details like side effects or rate limits. No annotations to contradict.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded with essential information in one short sentence.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema; covers purpose and key behavioral note, though could mention return format.

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 description for api_key; the tool description adds no extra meaning 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 clearly states it provides global market stats (total cap, volume, BTC dominance) and notes no API key needed, distinguishing it from more specific tools like get_coin or get_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?

Implies usage for global stats without authentication, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavior. It mentions a $0.01 cost but lacks details on read-only nature, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Incomplete for a quote tool.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose with no unnecessary words.

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

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

Despite high schema coverage, the description lacks output structure, usage scenarios, and cost details. For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, more context is needed.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond stating 'best route, price impact, fees'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a Jupiter swap quote with specifics: best route, price impact, fees for any Solana token pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_price or get_arbitrage by focusing on swap quotes.

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. Does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before executing a swap), or contrast with other tools.

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 must carry behavioral disclosure. Only states 'watch,' implying read-only but does not confirm. No mention of permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Cost hint ($0.02) hints at paid usage but incomplete.

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?

Extremely short (one sentence) but under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here it omits critical details. The cost is arguably irrelevant for tool selection.

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, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool is nearly useless for an agent. It fails to specify return format, supported chains, or risk indicators. Agents cannot reliably invoke this without guessing.

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%. The description does not explain parameters (chain, api_key). No enum or format hints for chain values. Parameter semantics are entirely absent, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Liquidation risk watch across DeFi positions.' This indicates a purpose of monitoring liquidation risks, distinguishing it from siblings like get_defi_pools or get_portfolio_health. However, 'watch' is vague (could mean list, monitor, or assess). The cost hint adds no clarity.

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. Sibling tools include similar monitoring tools (e.g., get_portfolio_health) with no differentiation. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

The description mentions a cost of $0.05, which is a behavioral trait. It also lists output elements, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or any rate limits. Since annotations are absent, the description partially covers transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, the cost detail could be separated or placed in a more structured note, though it does not significantly harm conciseness.

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 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not specify input format, constraints (e.g., chain or address type), or return structure, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the two parameters ('address', 'api_key'). The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the parameter names, which are generic.

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 'rug risk analysis' and lists output components (risk score, flags, liquidity, holder analysis). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_contract' or 'get_meme_scan', which have different focuses.

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 siblings, no prerequisites, and no examples. The agent is left to infer the appropriate 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, destructive, authentication needs beyond api_key, rate limits, or side effects. The cost hint is insufficient.

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 short but lacks structure. The single sentence front-loads some purpose but omits parameter details and usage context. The cost mention is cryptic.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented parameters, the description is severely incomplete. Agents lack essential information to understand input, output, or usage boundaries.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters (chain, limit, minLiq, api_key). It lists output metrics but provides no semantic meaning for inputs, leaving agents to guess.

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 specifies the verb 'scan' and the resource 'new meme tokens across DEXs', listing key metrics. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_meme_analyze' or 'get_meme_trending', and the cost reference '$0.05' is ambiguous.

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 lacks context for suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only adds the cost ($0.03) but does not mention read-only nature, data update frequency, or any side effects. For a data retrieval tool, cost is useful but insufficient.

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 (4 words plus cost), but it omits essential information. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity and completeness; here it is under-specified.

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, no annotations, and 39 sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide context on data format, pagination, cost implications, or how it differs from similar tools like get_trending.

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%. The description does not explain the limit or api_key parameters. The agent has no guidance on what limit controls or how to obtain the api_key.

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 'Trending DEX tokens by volume' provides a clear verb and resource, but does not differentiate from siblings like get_trending or get_top_volume. The name suggests meme tokens, but the description is generic.

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 like get_trending. The cost note ($0.03) implies it is a paid endpoint, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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?

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions a cost. It lacks disclosure of any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or output format, leaving an agent with minimal behavioral understanding.

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 short with two fragments, efficiently conveying the core purpose and cost. However, it lacks a complete sentence structure and could be more formal.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to specify which chains are covered, what metrics 'health' includes, or any expected response structure.

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

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

The input schema has one parameter (api_key) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain the parameter's purpose, format, or how to obtain it, adding no value 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves blockchain network health and status across major chains, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like get_coin or get_gas that focus on other aspects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context for appropriate usage. The $0.01 cost hint is insufficient.

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 must disclose behavior. It hints at cost but does not explain the implication, nor does it mention required API key, output format, or any rate limits or side effects.

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?

Very concise single sentence with no extra words. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, leaving critical details missing.

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 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits required fields, parameter formats, and return value structure.

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 0% but description only hints at 'days' parameter via intervals. Does not explain 'vs' or 'coin'. Minimal value added over 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?

Description clearly states it provides OHLC chart data with specific intervals (1d, 7d, 30d, 90d), distinguishing it from siblings like get_price and get_price_summary. However, the '$0.01' is unexplained and may confuse.

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. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, 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 exist and the description is minimal. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as cost (beyond '$0.02'), rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects.

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 concise but under-specifies the tool's functionality. It fails to provide necessary detail, making it not 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?

Given the complexity of portfolio health analysis and two parameters with no schema descriptions or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input format or 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 0% and the description provides no explanation for the api_key or holdings parameters. Their format or expected values are completely unclear.

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 mentions 'portfolio diversification' and lists concepts like concentration, correlation, sector exposure, giving some sense of the tool's purpose but lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'calculates', 'provides'). It is somewhat vague.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_portfolio_value or get_network_health. The description does not provide any context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost ($0.01), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose safety aspects (e.g., idempotency, side effects), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what operations are performed. The cost hint adds some transparency, but it is insufficient for full behavioral understanding.

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—only two short phrases. It front-loads the purpose and adds a cost note in the second sentence. Every word is essential; there is no verbosity 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core function and cost. However, it lacks details on return value format, possible errors, or usage examples. The mention of cost adds context, but more completeness would be beneficial, such as noting that the portfolio value is computed from the given holdings.

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% (holdings has a description; api_key has none). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it restates that holdings is a JSON but does not explain api_key's purpose or format. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not provide additional semantic meaning for the parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Calculate total portfolio value in USD from holdings JSON.' It specifies the verb (calculate), resource (portfolio value), and input format (holdings JSON). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_portfolio_health, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only hint is the mention of cost ($0.01), which implies it should be used when a portfolio valuation is needed, but no comparative 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?

No annotations exist. The description claims 'no API key needed' yet the schema includes an optional api_key for billing, creating ambiguity. It does not disclose rate limits, data freshness guarantees, or concurrency restrictions, leaving the agent uninformed about important behavioral aspects.

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 front-loads the key verb 'prices' and conveys the essential value proposition. Very concise with no wasted words. Could be separated into two sentences for readability but remains efficient.

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 3 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what the response contains (e.g., single price vs. mapping), how to request multiple coins, or the effect of api_key. For a simple tool this might be acceptable, but more context would improve agent selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only api_key described). The description adds no explanation for vs or coins parameters beyond their defaults. With one third of parameters documented, the description should provide more context on how to specify coins or currencies but fails to do so.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides real-time crypto prices for a large set of coins, and highlights a key feature (no API key needed). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_coin or get_price_summary which may require keys or have different scopes.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies a general use case but does not mention alternatives like get_price_summary for aggregated data or get_coin for single coin details. The agent receives no direction on choosing between this and other price-related tools.

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 convey behavioral traits. It mentions a cost ($0.02) but does not specify if this is per call or a subscription. It lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, side effects, or authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter.

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 two short sentences. While nothing is wasted, it lacks formatting (bullets, sections) and may be too brief for complete understanding.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide critical context: what the output contains, whether it's a summary object, cost implications, or how to use the required api_key. It is insufficient for confident use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only implies 'days' with 'over N days', ignoring vs, coin, and api_key. No defaults or formats are described.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides price statistics (high, low, average, volatility) over N days, which is specific and informative. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_price or get_ohlc, which may offer similar or overlapping 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_price for current price, get_ohlc for open/high/low/close). No conditions 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 disclose behavioral traits. It reveals output fields and cost, but does not mention safety (read-only), authentication requirements beyond optional API key, or any side effects. Important information about the data's freshness or update frequency is missing.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose. It wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured with a bullet list of fields.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality and cost. However, it lacks details on pagination, data freshness, and the meaning of 'age'. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema has 50% coverage: only api_key has a description. The description does not elaborate on the 'limit' parameter (e.g., max value, effect). It adds no value 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves latest tokens from Pump.fun and lists the returned fields (name, symbol, market cap, age, volume). It also mentions cost. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other similar 'get' tools, but the context is sufficient.

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 like get_trending or get_meme_trending. The description merely states what it returns without any usage context or exclusions.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only discloses that no API key is needed, but fails to state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. Results are also not described.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without harming conciseness.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and the simple parameter set, the description provides minimal but sufficient context for a basic search. It misses details like return format or pagination, but for a straightforward tool this is adequate.

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 description adds meaning to the 'q' parameter by interpreting it as a name or symbol search, which the schema lacks. However, the api_key parameter is already described in the schema, and no further detail is given. With 50% schema coverage, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'coins', and the method 'by name or symbol'. This effectively conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other get_* tools, though it doesn't specify what is returned.

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 mention of 'no API key needed' is the only contextual hint, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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 only says 'aggregated social sentiment and market mood' and mentions a cost, but does not disclose authentication needs (api_key required but not explained), rate limits, data freshness, or what the aggregation entails. The cost hint is minor behavioral info but insufficient.

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?

Very short at two phrases, but lacks structure. The cost is oddly placed. While concise, it could be better organized with a clear separation of purpose and usage note.

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 low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'aggregated' means, the format of the return data, or how to authenticate. For a tool with two parameters, more context is needed 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It implies the 'coin' parameter by saying 'for a coin' but does not explain the 'api_key' parameter or its role. The default value 'bitcoin' is mentioned only indirectly. No enums or other parameter details are provided.

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 it provides aggregated social sentiment and market mood for a coin, with a default of bitcoin. The verb 'aggregates' and resource 'social sentiment' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_fear_greed or get_price_summary which may also provide sentiment-like 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a cost ($0.02) which is a usage constraint but does not provide explicit when/when-not criteria or mention any other relevant context for selection.

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. It discloses cost ('$0.01') and data items, but lacks info on read-only status, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then cost. No unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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 1-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key data and cost but lacks response format, error handling, and usage context. Adequate but not fully 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?

Single parameter api_key has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain its purpose or how to obtain it, adding no value 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?

Description clearly states verb ('overview') and resource ('stablecoins') with specific data points (supply, dominance, peg status). Distinguishes from siblings like get_coin or get_top by focusing on stablecoins.

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?

Description implies usage for stablecoin market overview, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like get_coin or get_summary. No exclusions or prerequisites 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 bears full responsibility. It mentions a cost of $0.01 but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what destructive actions (if any) it performs, or any behavioral traits beyond the summary. Minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence adds cost info but is still efficient. No unnecessary words.

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

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

With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the tool lacks essential context. The description does not explain the return format, how to interpret the summary, or how this differs from related tools like get_global or get_price_summary.

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

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

The input schema has one parameter (api_key) with no description coverage in the schema. The description does not even mention the api_key parameter, let alone explain its role. No value added beyond the schema definition.

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 a market overview including prices, sentiment, global data, and top movers, which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_price_summary', which may overlap in purpose.

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 like get_global or get_price. The description implies it is for a quick overview but provides no exclusions or context for decision-making.

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. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization needs, or side effects. The mention of cost ($0.02) hints at a paid API but doesn't clarify 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?

Extremely brief (12 words) but sacrifices essential details. Every word should add value; here the description omits parameter explanations and usage context.

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 and no description of return values. For a data retrieval tool, users need to know format, pagination, or limits. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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%. Description does not explain what 'address' (token contract address? holder address?) or 'api_key' (authentication) mean. No additional semantic context beyond the parameter names.

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?

Description states 'Token holder distribution analysis from DEX data', clearly indicating the tool retrieves token holder distribution data from DEX sources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_coin and get_price by focusing on holder distribution rather than general price or coin info.

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 like get_whale_moves or get_social_sentiment. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'no API key needed', which indicates no authentication required. However, it omits details such as rate limits, data freshness, possible side effects, or behavior on error. The single trait is useful but insufficient for complete transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous words. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful context; still, every word 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, 3 parameters with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination (if any), or how the defaults behave. For a simple list tool, it should at least mention that it returns an array of coin objects. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use effectively.

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 low (33%, only api_key has a description). The description adds no information about the 'vs' or 'limit' parameters beyond their defaults. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent uninformed about allowed values or format for 'vs' and range or impact of 'limit'.

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 retrieves 'top coins by market cap', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself among sibling tools like 'get_top_gainers' by specifying the criterion 'market cap' and the unique trait 'no API key needed'.

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 mentions 'no API key needed', hinting at usage ease, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_top_gainers, get_top_losers, or get_top_volume. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds that 'no API key needed', which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether data is cached, rate limits, or that it's a read-only operation.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

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

For a simple list tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description provides the core function and a key constraint (no API key needed). However, it doesn't explain what data is returned, ordering, or how it differs from siblings like get_top.

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 api_key has a description). The description does not elaborate on the 'limit' parameter, leaving its meaning inferred. The tool description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 'Top 24h gainers', which specifies the verb (get) and resource (top gainers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_top_losers and get_top_volume.

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

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

The description implies usage for retrieving top gainers in the last 24 hours but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_top or get_top_losers. No when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It reveals that no API key is required for basic use, implying it's a low-barrier operation. However, it does not disclose what the output contains, rate limits, or any side effects.

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?

Very concise at one sentence. No wasted words, but could be structured to include brief parameter explanations or usage context. Still, it respects the principle of front-loading purpose.

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

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

Given the simplicity (no required params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details like the meaning of 'losers' (percentage change?), time frame precision, and any note on pagination or result count.

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% (limit lacks description, api_key has one). The description does not explain the limit parameter beyond the schema default, nor does it clarify the api_key's role ('for billing' is in schema). No added value for parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves top 24-hour losers and mentions no API key needed. It distinguishes from siblings like get_top_gainers by naming, but does not explicitly differentiate from other top tools.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_top_gainers or get_top_volume. The only usage hint is that no API key is needed, but no conditions or exclusions are provided.

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 addition of '$0.01' hints at a cost, but no annotations are provided. The description does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or authentication details beyond the required api_key parameter.

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 short (3 words plus cost), which sacrifices completeness. While concise, it lacks necessary details and could be better structured to include parameter explanations.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description still fails to provide essential context such as result format, pagination, or constraints on the limit parameter. It is inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain any parameters (e.g., 'limit' meaning or valid range). The description adds no value 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'Top coins by 24h trading volume', indicating a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_top' or 'get_trending', which might have similar purposes but different sorting criteria.

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. With many sibling tools that likely overlap, the description fails to specify conditions or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses one behavioral trait ('no API key needed'), but fails to mention other important aspects like output format, pagination, rate limits, or whether it requires authentication. For a tool without annotations, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose and a key behavioral note. No wasted words.

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

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

Given the low complexity (no required params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by specifying what the output contains (e.g., list of coin names/ids) and whether there is any default ordering. Sibling context suggests many similar tools, so more detail would help.

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 only one parameter ('api_key') with a schema description. The description's note that 'no API key needed' reinforces the optional nature but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is met.

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 specifies a clear action ('get') and resource ('trending coins on CoinGecko'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_meme_trending' by not mentioning memes and from 'trending_categories' by focusing on coins.

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 (e.g., 'get_meme_trending', 'trending_categories'). The mention of 'no API key needed' implies a condition for usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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. It mentions a cost of $0.03 but lacks details on data returned, permissions, or other behavioral traits.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, clear and to the point. It is concise but could be more structured with parameter details.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, usage context, and output format.

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%. The description does not explain the three parameters (address, api_key, minValue). 'For any token' hints at address meaning but is insufficient.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool tracks large transactions and whale movements for any token, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_price or get_summary.

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 this tool versus alternatives. Among many get_* siblings, no differentiation provided. Usage is implied but not 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 description mentions a cost of $0.03, which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose that the tool is read-only, requires an API key (implied by schema), or describe the output format. With no annotations, more detail is expected.

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 short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices important details. It is concise but not sufficiently informative for a tool with no other documentation.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the correlation matrix format, how to interpret results, or any limitations, making it inadequate for proper use.

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 description adds no explanation for the parameters (days, coins, api_key) beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify that 'coins' overrides the default list or what 'N days' means. Schema coverage is 0% and description fails to compensate.

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 computes a correlation matrix between top coins over N days, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_coins' or 'get_price'. However, 'top coins' is ambiguous and the purpose could be more precise.

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 others. It does not mention any prerequisites, alternative tools, or context for optimal use.

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 exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'off-chain settlement with on-chain roadmap' but fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs, reversibility, or failure modes for a payment tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but the added phrases 'Off-chain settlement with on-chain roadmap. $0.01.' are somewhat cryptic yet concise. No wasted words.

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

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

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description lacks critical context: process, fees (vague $0.01), confirmation, latency, or requirements like sufficient balance. Incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (amount in micro-USDC, to_key recipient key). The description adds marginal context (fee, settlement type) but does not explain the api_key parameter or enhance parameter understanding 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 clearly states the tool sends USDC credits between agents on CryptoBoss, which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from the many read-only analysis sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no hints about appropriate 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the key is free, comes with $1 credit, and supports 100-200 free calls, providing useful behavioral context beyond the tool's basic action.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and key constraints. It could optionally mention the output format, but is sufficient as is.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add param details, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's verb 'Get' and resource 'free API key', and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all data retrieval/analysis tools.

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

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

The description implies it is for first-time users needing an API key, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide when-not 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?

With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral info. It mentions 'notifies' and '$0.01' (possibly cost), but fails to disclose API key requirement, rate limits, alert recurrence, or notification mechanism. The cryptic '$0.01' adds confusion.

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?

Description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the action but includes an ambiguous '$0.01'. Not verbose, but not well-organized.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain inputs, outputs, or behavior beyond a vague notification. Context signals show low schema coverage, so description should compensate but fails.

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 property descriptions are empty (0% coverage), yet the description adds no information about any of the four parameters. It loosely references 'coin' and 'target' but does not explain api_key or condition. This is a critical gap.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Create' and resource 'price alert', clearly indicating the action. However, it's slightly ambiguous because it doesn't mention the condition parameter (above/below) which is part of the purpose. Still, it distinguishes from siblings like delete_alert or get_alerts.

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 such as delete_alert or get_alerts. No prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions an unclear '$0.01' cost hint. It does not state that it's read-only, requires authentication, or describe side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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

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

The description is very brief, but the second sentence '$0.01' adds limited value and may confuse. While front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should clearly explain sorting and parameter usage. It only partially addresses sorting and omits parameter and cost details, making it incomplete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters like 'limit' and 'api_key'. It does not mention either parameter or their roles, leaving the agent without guidance on how to configure calls.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns 'hot crypto categories ranked by market cap change,' providing a specific verb (ranked) and resource (crypto categories), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_categories' or 'get_trending'.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this over similar tools.

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