botindex_solana_active

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions filtering by status but doesn't explain what 'active' means, what status values exist, whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements. The '$0.02' notation is cryptic and provides no meaningful behavioral context.

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 brief (one sentence plus cryptic notation) but could be more front-loaded. The '$0.02' at the end adds confusion rather than clarity. While concise, the structure could be improved by placing the core functionality more prominently and eliminating the ambiguous notation.

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 has no parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description provides basic context about what data is retrieved. However, for a tool querying blockchain data with no annotations, it should ideally specify more about the return format, data freshness, or limitations. The cryptic '$0.02' notation reduces rather than enhances completeness.

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 with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It does mention the filtering by status, which is the implicit behavior rather than a parameter. This meets expectations for a parameterless tool.

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: to retrieve currently active Metaplex Genesis launches on Solana filtered by status. It specifies the resource (Metaplex Genesis launches), platform (Solana), and filtering criterion (status). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'botindex_solana_launches' or 'botindex_doppler_launches' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions the tool is filtered by status, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'botindex_solana_launches' or 'botindex_doppler_launches'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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