botindex_crypto_graduating

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'signals' and a cost ('$0.02'), suggesting it might be a paid data-fetching operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or whether it's read-only or mutative. This leaves key operational aspects unclear.

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 very concise—two short phrases that convey the core purpose and cost. It's front-loaded with the main function. However, the cost mention ('$0.02') feels tacked on without context, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity implied by 'signals' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the signals entail, their format, frequency, or how to interpret them. For a tool that likely returns data, more context is needed to be useful.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool provides 'Token graduation signals from Catapult launchpad to Hyperliquid mainnet via GradSniper', which gives a specific purpose (signals about token graduation) and mentions relevant platforms. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'botindex_crypto_tokens' or 'botindex_crypto_intel', leaving the exact differentiation ambiguous.

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 includes no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a cost ('$0.02'), which might imply a paid service, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools in the botindex_crypto category, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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