botindex_hl_correlation_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a cost ('$0.05'), which hints at a paid or rate-limited operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or output format. For a tool with potential financial implications, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—two short phrases that convey the core purpose and cost. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (financial correlation matrix) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and cost but omits critical details like data sources, update frequency, return format, and error handling. For a tool in a suite with many siblings, more context would help differentiate and ensure correct usage.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have explained any implicit inputs (e.g., time range or asset selection). Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified, as the description doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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: providing a correlation matrix for Hyperliquid perpetuals, specifically for portfolio construction. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on correlation analysis rather than other crypto analytics (e.g., funding arbitrage, whale alerts, token launches). However, it doesn't specify the exact verb (e.g., 'generate' or 'retrieve'), keeping it slightly less specific than a perfect 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions portfolio construction as a use case, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites, timing, or how it differs from other correlation tools like 'botindex_sports_correlations'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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