get_mm_hunt_score

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

As there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It declares no side effects and lists return fields with types/ranges. It does not mention data freshness or authentication requirements, but for a simple read-only score tool this is adequate. A 4 is appropriate given the missing details about update frequency.

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, well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, NOT WHEN, RETURNS, COST, side effects), and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return structure. With only 3 parameters (all optional) and low complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and cost completely. Sibling tools and usage boundaries are provided.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add any new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 it provides a 'one-line liquidation pressure summary' with specific return fields. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_mm_trap_state and get_liq_radar, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT WHEN' sections that define appropriate contexts (quick hunt read, alert_level) and specify alternatives (get_mm_trap_state for full math, get_liq_radar for raw clusters). This provides strong guidance for tool selection.

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