Apex Hackathons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: embedding matching, indexed sources (ETHGlobal, Devfolio, Devpost Web3-filtered, Colosseum, major annual events), and the behavior of searchPriorBuilds returning past projects. No contradictions with 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 sentences, front-loading the main action in the first sentence and providing usage and source details in the second. Every sentence earns its place with 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 1 required, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and data sources comprehensively. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema is present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains that description is 'embedding-matched against indexed hackathons (and prior projects, if requested)', gives examples for chains, and clarifies that searchPriorBuilds checks if someone has built something similar before committing.

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 purpose: finding upcoming Web3 hackathons matching a project description, and optionally surfacing prior hackathon projects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., apex_fund_match, apex_portfolio_match) by focusing specifically on hackathons, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'when a founder asks where they could enter their project, whether anyone has built a similar idea before (set searchPriorBuilds: true), or to scope timeline / prize-pool / chain fit.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear and adequate for decision-making.

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