MEV & Market-Abuse Compliance Screen

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: cost ($0.03), decision thresholds (NO_COMMIT for critical or 2+ major findings), confidence nuances (~0.55 vs ~0.05-0.2), and the inclusion of regulatory_reference tags. This goes beyond the annotations and provides meaningful operational detail.

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 detailed yet tightly packed with actionable information. Every sentence contributes unique value: scope, cost, decision logic, confidence semantics, and regulatory tags. It is front-loaded with the tool name and cost, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a compliance-screening tool with nuanced decision logic, the description is remarkably complete. It covers scope, exclusions, cost, severity thresholds, confidence interpretation, and output tags. Since an output schema exists, the absence of explicit return-value descriptions is acceptable. The description fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the schema, but it does clarify the purpose of the 'response' parameter (screen for MEV/market-abuse language). This is baseline adequate with high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('screen') and resource ('MEV & Market-Abuse') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling evaluation tools by focusing on market-abuse language. It also specifies the tool's text-level scope, immediately differentiating it from transaction-level analyzers.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (post-action screening of agent responses proposing on-chain/trading actions) and explicitly states what it is not ('not a mempool/transaction analyzer'). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools, so it misses the full 'alternatives' criterion.

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