Apex Twitter Audit

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 behavioral context by listing the detailed output components (reach, activity, engagement, authenticity, discourse) and mentioning overlap with Apex-network funds, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 consists of three concise sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second enumerates the output details, and the third provides usage guidance. Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 that an output schema exists, the description is not required to detail return values. It already lists the five dimensions, summary, recommendations, raw metrics, and fund overlap, which comprehensively covers what the tool produces. This is complete for an audit tool with a rich output schema.

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%: both parameters (handle, ticker) have clear descriptions in the schema. The description restates the format for handle but does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, value added is minimal, resulting in a baseline score of 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 clearly states the action 'Audit' and the resource 'X (Twitter) account of a Web3 project'. It specifies the output: a 0-100 score, breakdown across 5 dimensions, summary, recommendations, raw metrics, and fund overlap. This makes the purpose highly specific and distinct from sibling tools like apex_verify or apex_score.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when asked to evaluate a project's social presence, check for inflated metrics, or see which Apex funds have engaged'. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternative sibling tools for comparison, which would warrant a 5.

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