Peerlytics Data

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the tool is paid ($0.05 in USDC on Base via x402) and the data window is bounded by 168 recorded hours of retention.

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

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and granularity, with the cost disclosure placed last where it belongs. The mid-sentence field list is dense but every item is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the returned metrics. Combined with cost, granularity, and retention limits, an agent has enough to select and call the tool correctly; only currency/platform format guidance is missing.

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% and the description compensates partially: 'up to the last 168 recorded hours' clarifies the retention ceiling behind the hours parameter. It adds nothing about the currency format (^[A-Za-z]{3}$) or the platform id syntax, and those remain schema-only.

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 precise resource (hourly public USDC liquidity depth history) and enumerates the returned fields (listed depth, sellers, best premium, largest order, banded depth), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like peerlytics_weekly_seller_rates, though the 'hourly' granularity hints at the contrast.

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?

Scope is implied: it serves one payment platform and one currency, capped at 168 hours. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no alternative sibling is named, so the agent must infer applicability.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context with 'Free.' and by naming the x402 download URLs and metadata fields, but it does not discuss authentication, pagination, or how the paid datasets differ behaviorally from free ones.

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 plus a one-word cost note. Nothing is wasted and the most important information (what is listed, what is returned, and that it is free) comes first.

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 no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by naming coverage, columns, prices, and x402 download URLs. It is nearly complete, though it leaves 'Peer' and 'x402' unexplained.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; per the rubric this gives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the paid Peer datasets') and enumerates the returned fields (coverage, columns, prices, x402 download URLs), so the agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings peerlytics_liquidity_depth or peerlytics_weekly_seller_rates, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit guidance is that it lists paid datasets, which an agent could infer from the name alone.

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 readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints already present, the description still adds context annotations cannot convey: a $0.05 USDC-on-Base x402 payment requirement, the temporal boundary (since the first Base fill), and the data-gap convention that suppressed weeks return only a reason. It stops short of describing response shape or ordering, which matters given there is no output 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the scope statement leads and the operational caveats (withheld weeks, cost) follow. Density is high, but 'raw Peer onchain oracle at each fill's signal block' is opaque jargon that may cost an agent comprehension even while it saves tokens.

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 payment gate, temporal coverage, and withheld-week behavior are covered, but with no output schema the description should say what a weekly rate record looks like (fields, units of the premium, how a withheld week is represented beyond 'the reason'). For a paid, paid-per-call dataset tool that gap is meaningful.

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%: platform is documented in-schema but currency carries only a pattern. The description compensates by clarifying currency semantics ('one currency') and, more valuably, that omitting platform aggregates across platforms while supplying it narrows to a single route. It does not confirm the three-letter ISO-code format implied by ^[A-Za-z]{3}$.

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

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

The description names the precise resource: weekly realised seller premiums benchmarked against the raw Peer onchain oracle at each fill's signal block, scoped by currency and optional platform. The domain specificity alone separates it from peerlytics_liquidity_depth, though no sibling is named and no explicit verb (e.g. 'returns'/'lists') fronts the sentence.

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 clause 'for one currency across platforms, or one platform route' implicitly tells the agent how to choose between omitting or supplying the platform filter, which is real guidance at the call level. However, there is nothing about when to prefer this tool over peerlytics_liquidity_depth or peerlytics_paid_datasets, and no stated prerequisites beyond the cost disclosure.

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