get_mm_trap_state

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, no side effects, cost structure (2 credits, free pool, quota, $0.01 x402), and payment mechanism. This is comprehensive.

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 reasonably concise with a clear structure: purpose, usage conditions, return fields, cost, side effects. Front-loaded with the core question. Slightly long but each sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly lists return fields (state, trap_direction, etc.) and contextualizes the tool within sibling tools. With 2 well-described parameters, it is fully complete for agent invocation.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, but the description adds valuable context about credit weight and quota skipping for agent_wallet. Baseline 3, plus extra context justifies 4.

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 returns MM trap state for BTC, differentiating from raw cluster data or one-line pressure scores. It mentions specific output fields and distinguishes from sibling tools get_mm_hunt_score and get_liq_radar.

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 provides USE WHEN (sizing risk, needing state) and NOT WHEN (one-line pressure, raw OI/clusters) with named alternative tools. This gives clear guidance for agent selection.

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