get_mm_hunt_score

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the pay-per-call cost ($0.01 USDC via x402) and that it is read-only, which are important behavioral traits. Does not cover rate limits or destruction, but sufficient given no annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: first sentence describes output, second sentence provides payment and usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It enumerates key return fields, states cost, and clarifies it is read-only. Could include pagination or response format details, but sufficient for a simple data fetch.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'default summary only' matches schema), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches a specific score ('mm_hunt_score') from the HyperNatt microstructure stack, listing key return fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_btc_usdc_signal' by focusing on a unique risk metric.

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?

Explicitly says 'Read-only JSON for agent risk context — not a trade signal', guiding appropriate use and cautioning against misuse as a trading signal. No explicit alternatives given, but context is clear.

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