Floatout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces and extends this by stating checkout requires the owner's wallet and that the tool does not create an order or make a payment. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is three concise sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral caveats are relevant and useful.

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

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

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It states what is read, what is included, and what it does not do, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to call it incorrectly.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than input details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the exact resource: current publicly purchasable Floatout activation plans, including prices, revenue-share terms, and browser purchase links. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by stating it reads plans rather than a fee study or page.

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 for when to call this tool: when reading current publicly purchasable plans and related purchase terms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions beyond stating it does not create an order or payment, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the fixed date window, the 'archive sample' nature, coverage limitations, and the explicit caveat that this is not revenue or earnings. This helps the agent understand the data's scope and limitations without contradicting the 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds two short clarifications (contents and exclusions). 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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, data contents, limitations, and exclusions. It could go slightly further by describing the exact return format, but 'including daily data and coverage limitations' gives enough shape for an agent to invoke it 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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context about the data content, currency, date range, and limitations, which is more than necessary for a parameterless tool.

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

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

The description names a specific action ('Read') and a precise resource: Floatout's fixed September 10–23, 2026 archive sample of gross Hyperliquid builder fees in USDC. It also clarifies what is included and explicitly differentiates this data from Floatout revenue or expected earnings, making the tool's purpose 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 gives clear context about what data this tool provides and warns that it is 'Not Floatout revenue or expected customer earnings,' which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like list_floatout_plans or read_floatout_page, but the fixed fee-study scope makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful context beyond them: it returns Markdown, includes the source URL, and reflects 'current published content' rather than cached/stale data.

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: purpose first, return value second, scope boundary third. Every sentence earns its place and nothing important is buried.

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 read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, return format, and safety scope adequately. The one gap is that the meaning of the 'path' enum values is never described, though the enum is largely self-explanatory.

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 there is one required parameter, so the description carries some burden. It gestures at what kinds of pages exist ('product, pricing, security or operator guide'), but never explains that 'path' selects one of the enumerated site routes, leaving the agent to infer it from the enum 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('public Floatout product, pricing, security or operator guide') plus the output format (Markdown). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read_builder_fee_study, but the scope of public guide pages is reasonably implied by the enum-constrained path.

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?

'Read a public ... guide' and 'Does not sign in or change a platform' imply the appropriate context (read-only lookup of published docs). However, no alternative is named (e.g. when to prefer read_builder_fee_study over a guide page) and there are no explicit exclusions.

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