botindex_zora_creator_scores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'attention metrics' and a cost '$0.03,' hinting at behavioral aspects like pricing or metric focus. However, it lacks critical details: whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first part. The second part adds cost information, which is relevant. However, the inclusion of '$0.03' might be slightly extraneous if not standard across tools, but it doesn't significantly detract from efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 (a query tool with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, authentication needs, or how 'attention metrics' are defined. The cost hint is insufficient to compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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% for the single parameter 'limit,' with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: retrieving 'Creator performance scores on Zora' and specifies 'Top-performing creators by attention metrics.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'botindex_zora_attention_momentum' or 'botindex_zora_trending_coins' by focusing on scores rather than momentum or trending items. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the verb 'retrieve' or 'fetch,' slightly reducing specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'botindex_zora_attention_momentum' or 'botindex_zora_trending_coins,' nor does it specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the cost '$0.03,' but this doesn't inform tool selection.

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