47620 Base + Polygon Data API

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by disclosing the pay-per-call cost ($0.005 USDC) and the 'live' nature of the USD value. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but 'balance' strongly implies it.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the core functionality and scope, and the second surfaces the cost. 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?

For a simple one-parameter balance tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the input, the output (native balance + USD value), the network scope, and the cost. It could add more detail about the output format, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'address' parameter as a Base address. The description adds little beyond the schema beyond reinforcing that the address is any Base address and that the result includes live USD value.

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 that the tool returns the native balance and live USD value for a Base address, and the 'base address' phrasing distinguishes it from the polygon_* siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', but the meaning is unambiguous.

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

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

The description implies usage whenever a caller needs a Base address's native balance and USD value. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools such as base_token or base_stables, so the usage context is only implicit.

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 discloses the pay-per-call cost ($0.005 USDC) and indicates the result is a 'header + summary' rather than a full block. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or what happens when an invalid number is provided or when 'latest' is omitted.

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 packs the resource, selecting input, output fields, and pricing with no filler. Every part earns its place and the key info is front-loaded.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists return fields (compensating for output schema absence) and pricing. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify the default for an omitted 'number' or behavior for invalid blocks, but overall it is sufficient for a basic call.

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 already describes the single parameter 'number' with 100% coverage ('Block number or "latest"'). The description essentially restates the same information without adding format details or default behavior, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific resource ('base block'), selection criteria ('by number or latest'), and enumerates the returned fields (hash, timestamp, tx count, gas used, base fee). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as base_tx, base_gas, and polygon_block.

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

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

The description gives clear context (retrieve block header/summary data) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. An agent can infer usage from the listed fields, but there is no explicit routing guidance compare to siblings.

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 the description carries the burden of disclosure. It honestly discloses the pay-per-call cost and outlines the returned information. It does not explicitly say the call is read-only, but the predicate/check wording strongly implies it.

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

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

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose, output scope, and pricing with no filler. Key information is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient but it does not specify return formatting or behavior for non-contract addresses. It names bytecode size and ERC-20 metadata but not their structure, and it lacks usage guidance to disambiguate from 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 schema already documents the single 'address' parameter fully, with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level syntax, formatting, or edge-case detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 job: determine whether a base address is a contract, plus return bytecode size and ERC-20 metadata. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like base_balance or base_token. The verb is implied by 'whether' but unmistakable.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as base_token or polygon_contract. The pay-per-call note is operational context, not usage direction. No exclusions, prerequisites, or decision rules 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what output to expect (gas price in gwei + wei and estimated transfer cost) and discloses an important operational detail: the tool is pay-per-call at $0.005 USDC. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes, but for a zero-parameter read operation the core behavior is well covered.

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 entire description is one compact sentence that front-loads the main output and then adds the pricing caveat. Every word carries useful information, with no filler or repetition of schema data.

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

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

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains both the returned values and the cost condition. The sibling naming convention disambiguates the network. It does not formalize the exact output shape or the currency unit for the transfer cost estimate, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no irrelevant parameter information; there is no parameter burden for the agent to resolve.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reporting the current Base-chain gas price in gwei and wei plus an estimated cost for a 21k native transfer. It is distinguishable from siblings like base_balance and base_block by the resource it targets, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets.'

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs current gas price or native transfer cost information, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over polygon_gas or other sibling tools. There are no exclusions or alternative routing cues beyond the name and content.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states the output fields (chain id, latest block, gas price, native token USD price) and the pricing model, including the exact cost per call. It does not cover edge cases like network errors or return format, but for a zero-parameter health check it provides adequate behavioral context.

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

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

Two sentences, zero filler: the first sentence lists the exact data returned, the second conveys cost and pay-per-call model. Every clause adds value, and the structure is front-loaded.

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

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

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential invocation and cost details. The absence of an output schema means the agent must infer value formats (e.g., gas price units) from the field names alone, which is a minor completeness gap. Overall it is sufficient for basic 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 tool takes no parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema description coverage is not a factor. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details since there are none.

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 identifies the resource (Base network health) and enumerates the returned data points (chain id, latest block, gas price, native token USD price), making the tool's function clear. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', but the intent is unambiguous. The 'base' prefix and health focus differentiate it from sibling tools such as base_gas or polygon_health.

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 is the go-to tool for a low-cost Base network status snapshot, mentioning it is the cheapest call and pay-per-call. It does not explicitly compare with siblings such as base_gas or base_block, nor state when those alternatives would be more appropriate, leaving usage guidance largely implied.

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 transparency burden. It usefully discloses the pay-per-call cost and the fact that three stablecoins are fetched in one call. However, it omits output format, zero-balance handling, and error behavior, which are relevant for a call that charges per request.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the cost caveat are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the essential 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?

For a one-parameter read tool, the description is close to sufficient: it names the address input, the assets returned, and the cost. Yet with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the expected response shape and edge-case behavior unspecified, so it is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, address, already has a clear description. The tool description adds asset context but does not meaningfully expand on the address format, validation, or chain details beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns USDC/USDT/DAI balances for a base address and emphasizes that this is done in a single call. This gives it a specific resource and scope, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like base_balance for 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as base_balance, base_token, or polygon_stables. The cost and stablecoin scope imply a use case, but no exclusions, alternatives, or decision rules 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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the pay-per-call cost ($0.02 USDC) and the exact output fields. It does not cover error behavior or data freshness, but for a read-only price tool this is a solid disclosure.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs in the resource, the returned fields, and the cost without any fluff. Every part contributes to the agent's decision to call the tool.

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

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

The description is sufficient for a one-parameter read-only tool: it names the chain, the input address, the output data, and the pricing. Since there is no output schema, listing the returned fields in the description fully compensates.

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 already fully documents the single 'token' parameter as a base ERC-20 token address, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states what the tool returns: live price, liquidity, 24h volume, DEX pairs, and onchain token metadata for a base ERC-20 token. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like base_balance and base_contract, which target different resources.

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 when to use this tool: when you need token market data or DEX pairs for a Base ERC-20 token. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the 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, the description carries the behavioral burden reasonably well: it discloses that data is fresh, sourced from DexScreener boosts, sorted by 24h volume, and that each call costs $0.02 USDC. It does not mention output format or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-style feed tool this is good context.

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

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

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool returns and how it is filtered, and the second adds freshness and pricing. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a parameterless trending-list tool, the description is largely complete: it names the chain, the data source, the ranking metric, freshness, and cost. The only notable omission is an explicit statement of the return shape, but the absence of input parameters and output schema lowers the burden.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the description is not required to add parameter-level detail. The description adds useful context about what the returned data represents (trending pairs by volume), which is the relevant semantic information.

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 identifies the resource as trending Base DEX pairs and specifies the ranking criterion (24h volume, DexScreener boosts), which makes the tool's purpose understandable. It is clearly distinct from the polygon_trending sibling via the 'base network' reference, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs a fresh feed of trending Base DEX pairs, and the sibling naming makes the chain selection obvious. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives like base_token or polygon_trending.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by disclosing the output categories and, importantly, that the tool is pay-per-call at $0.01 USDC. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error scenarios, but the listed outputs strongly imply a read-only lookup.

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

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

Two compact sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's output and input; the second adds the critical cost detail. Every phrase 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main responsibilities: identifying the chain, the required input, the returned fields, and the cost. It is slightly light on explicit guidance about when to favor this over related Base/Polygon tools, but it is otherwise sufficiently complete for a simple lookup.

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 only parameter, hash, is already fully described in the schema as 'Transaction hash (0x...)', so schema coverage is 100%. The description repeats 'base tx hash' but adds no additional format, constraints, or usage detail beyond the schema, yielding the baseline score.

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 identifies the resource and the returned information: status, block, gas, and transfer summary for a Base transaction hash. This makes its purpose immediately identifiable and distinguishes it from siblings like base_balance or polygon_tx by chain and resource type.

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: pass a Base transaction hash when you need its status/block/gas/transfer summary. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as base_block, base_gas, or polygon_tx, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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 and usefully discloses both the cost ('Pay-per-call ($0.005 USDC)') and the return contents (native balance + live USD value). It does not mention error handling or the price source, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose before the cost detail, and every phrase ('Native balance', 'live USD value', 'any polygon address', 'pay-per-call') adds necessary 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, for which addresses, and at what cost. Minor gaps like address validity requirements or currency code (USD vs USDC) are non-critical for basic 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?

The input schema already describes the address parameter with 100% coverage ('polygon address (0x...)'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Native balance + live USD value' for 'any polygon address'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like base_balance by specifying the Polygon network and from polygon_token/polygon_stables by noting 'Native 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?

The phrase 'for any polygon address' provides clear context for when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and the network/asset type is self-evident from the wording.

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 behavioral burden itself. It adds two useful behavioral details: the cost consequence (pay-per-call $0.005 USDC) and the response contents (hash, timestamp, tx count, gas used, base fee). It does not cover edge cases such as behavior when the optional number parameter is omitted, but for a read-only block lookup this is a relatively minor 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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It packs the resource, accepted input, return fields, and pricing into a compact form that is easy to scan.

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

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

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation requirements: which block to request, what data will be returned, and the cost of the call. It omits error behavior and optionality details, but the provided information is likely sufficient for correct invocation in most normal use cases.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% — the number parameter is already described as 'Block number or "latest"' — so the baseline is 3 because the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds little parameter-specific context beyond restating the accepted value and does not clarify whether omitting number is allowed or what default would be used.

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 identifies a specific resource (a Polygon block by number or 'latest') and lists the returned header fields, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling token, balance, and transaction tools. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not contrast with the similarly named base_block sibling, relying mainly on the polygon prefix for disambiguation.

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 states accepted input values and the pay-per-call cost, but gives no guidance about when to choose polygon_block over alternatives such as polygon_tx or base_block. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit routing 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pay-per-call cost ($0.01 USDC), which is useful, but doesn't state whether the call is read-only, whether it reverts for non-contract addresses, or what the response format looks like. The cost disclosure is a positive, but the behavioral profile is 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the cost detail. It is efficient, though the cost detail could arguably be placed in annotations or a separate field.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and cost, but lacks behavioral details like response format, error behavior, and whether the ERC-20 metadata is returned for all addresses or only contracts. It is adequate but has clear 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 100% and the single parameter 'address' is described as 'polygon address (0x...)' in the schema. The description adds the context that the address is checked for contract status, but doesn't add format details beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Whether a polygon address is a contract') and resource ('polygon address'), and adds bytecode size + ERC-20 metadata. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like polygon_balance and polygon_token, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 checking if an address is a contract and retrieving metadata, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't mention alternatives like polygon_token for ERC-20 metadata, leaving the agent to infer the tool's niche.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pay-per-call cost and the units of the returned data, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, data source, or error/rate-limit behavior. For a simple data lookup this is a moderate 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 two short sentences with no filler, and the primary output is stated first. The pricing caveat is placed at the end as a secondary detail, which is an effective structure.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully explain the response contract; it gives the key outputs and units but leaves the exact field names and denomination of the estimated transfer cost uncertain. That is a real gap, though the low parameter complexity keeps it from being a serious deficiency.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The description correctly omits parameter details, giving it the baseline score for 0-parameter tools.

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

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

The description names the specific resource (Polygon gas) and the output values (gwei, wei, 21k transfer cost), so an agent knows exactly what data it receives. The 'polygon' prefix and gas-price focus distinguish it from sibling tools like base_gas or polygon_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?

The description implies the use case – needing current Polygon gas price – but it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. Since siblings like base_gas and polygon_balance exist, the absence of an explicit routing statement leaves this to the agent's inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the returned payload and per-call cost ($0.002 USDC). It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or describe response units, but 'health' plus the listed fields strongly imply a safe, no-parameter read.

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 one compact sentence followed by a one-sentence pricing note. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no duplication of schema content or filler.

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 no-parameter health endpoint, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: it names the network, lists the returned fields, and warns about payment. It omits minor output details like gas price units, but this is not critical for a simple health check.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already fully defines the call. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the resource as Polygon network health and enumerates the exact returned fields (chain id, latest block, gas price, native token USD price). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like polygon_balance or polygon_tx, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or use a verb.

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 metric-specific siblings such as polygon_gas, polygon_block, or polygon_token. The only selection signal is 'Cheapest call,' which addresses cost rather than task fit or alternatives.

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. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: pay-per-call cost ($0.01 USDC) and the 'one call' aggregation. However, it does not mention read-only nature, possible failure modes, or what the response contains.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core capability is front-loaded, and the cost/usage detail is included compactly.

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

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

For a one-parameter, low-complexity balance lookup, the description plus schema is largely complete. It communicates what the tool returns conceptually, the target address, and a key operational detail (cost). Lack of an output schema is not a major gap here.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter is already documented as 'polygon address (0x...)'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly specifies the resource (USDC/USDT/DAI balances on Polygon), the target (a polygon address), and the convenience of doing it in one call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polygon_balance (native vs stablecoin balances) and base_stables (different chain).

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 is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as polygon_balance, polygon_token, or base_stables. The description implies it is for stablecoin balances, but it does not state exclusions or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.02 USDC per call) and what data it returns, but does not mention rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid token), or that it is a read-only operation. The pay-per-call disclosure is useful, but other behavioral aspects are 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then a cost note. No fluff, every word earns its place. The description is compact and immediately understandable.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lists all major return types (price, liquidity, volume, DEX pairs, onchain metadata) and the cost. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect. Minor gaps: no mention of return format (e.g., JSON) or error cases, but given the simplicity, 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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'token', with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (it says 'any polygon ERC-20 token' but that's the same). Since schema is complete, baseline of 3 applies; no additional value is added.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (polygon ERC-20 token market data), listing concrete data fields: price, liquidity, 24h volume, DEX pairs, plus onchain metadata. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like polygon_balance (likely balance) and polygon_tx (transactions) by focusing on market 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?

The description implies when to use it (when you need market data for a Polygon token) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use this instead of polygon_trending' or 'not for token balances'. The usage is inferable from the purpose but not spelled out.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the data source/methodology (DexScreener boosts), freshness expectations, and an important cost behavior ($0.02 USDC per call). It does not mention return shape, rate limits, or whether results update in real time, but it does add meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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

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

Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is first, the freshness/agent relevance is second, and the cost is third. Every sentence adds value and the whole description is appropriately small for a zero-parameter tool.

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

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

For a zero-parameter read-only feed, the description covers the key operational facts: what data is returned (trending pairs by volume), the network (Polygon), the data source, freshness, and per-call cost. There is no output schema, so the description could arguably say it returns token/pair addresses or a list, but the description is still sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive at a high level.

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 zero parameters, so the description correctly omits parameter details. With no inputs to explain, the baseline is 4; the description adds context about the feed and cost that helps the agent decide whether calling it is worth the cost.

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

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

The description states a specific resource ('polygon DEX pairs' ranked by 24h volume, with DexScreener boosts. This is clear enough to distinguish it from polygon_balance, polygon_tx, and even base_trending by network differentiation. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch,' but the intended meaning is unambiguous.

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

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

'Fresh feed for agents' implies this is best used when an agent needs a current, agent-oriented list of trending Polygon DEX pairs, and 'pay-per-call' implies use should be measured. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the decision partly to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the operationally important pay-per-call fee and names the return categories (status, block, gas, transfer summary), which strongly implies a read-only transaction lookup. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but the disclosed cost and output scope are meaningful.

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 compact sentence with no filler. Every element—output summary, chain targeting, and cost—adds value, and the main content is front-loaded.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema. The description tells the agent what it will receive and warns about cost, which is enough for correct invocation. It does not describe invalid-hash handling or the exact result format, but the status field partially covers failure behavior.

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 only parameter, hash, is already described in the input schema as 'Transaction hash (0x...)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter details, so the schema carries the full burden; 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 identifies the resource—a Polygon transaction hash—and enumerates the output: status (success/reverted), block, gas, and transfer summary. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Returns,' but the meaning is unambiguous and the chain-specific naming distinguishes it from siblings like base_tx.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for Polygon chain lookups relative to base_* siblings, mention use cases, or state exclusions. The pay-per-call note is a cost warning, not usage direction.

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