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?

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: withheld weeks return only a reason, and the call costs $0.05 in USDC on Base via x402, which is a payment/auth precondition the annotations do not convey. Only the return shape and any rate-limiting/pagination behavior are left unstated.

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, purpose front-loaded, and the cost disclosure is placed last where it belongs. The first sentence is dense with domain jargon ('seller premiums', 'ISO week', 'first Base fill') but nothing is redundant.

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 largely does so, describing the weekly premium series and the withheld-week behavior. It also covers the payment requirement. What is missing is any note on the currency format expectation and the practical effect of the optional platform argument on the returned rows.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the platform parameter is documented in the schema but currency only as a regex pattern. The description usefully explains the semantic split between omitting platform (across platforms) and providing it (a single platform route), which the schema does not. However it never clarifies the currency format or that currency is required versus platform optional, so it only partially compensates.

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

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

The description names a specific resource and scope: weekly realised seller premiums against the ECB reference, per currency, per ISO week since the first Base fill. That is far more precise than a generic 'get rates', and it is clearly distinct from the liquidity_depth and paid_datasets siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those siblings, so a 4 rather than 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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when not to use it or which sibling to pick instead. The phrase 'one currency across platforms, or one platform route' hints at how the two arguments shape the query, but that is parameterization guidance, not usage guidance, and the agent must infer the rest.

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