vote_sentiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Cast' (implying a write), but does not disclose authentication requirements, whether userId must be an existing user, whether a vote can be changed, rate limits, or what the response looks like.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and structurally sound for what it attempts to convey, even though it omits important details.

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 five-parameter, four-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the required parameters, expected behavior, or return result, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it 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 only 20%, with the sentiment field described in the schema. The description echoes the bullish/bearish values and implies a token target, but it does not explain the required tokenAddress, chain, userId, or data parameters, so it fails to compensate for the low 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 and resource ('Cast a ... sentiment vote on a token'), which is clear and distinguishes the tool from trading siblings like buy_token or place_perp_order. It does not explicitly name any sibling or scope boundaries, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer all usage conditions.

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