telegram_osint_pulse

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world status, but the description adds material facts those annotations cannot express: a hard quota of 3 free calls/day/IP and the exact x402 payment terms including payTo and asset addresses. That is genuinely actionable behavioral context for an agent that may hit the paywall. It loses a point for not describing the response shape or what happens mid-session when the free quota runs out.

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, purpose front-loaded before the pricing terms. The long hex payTo and asset strings are unavoidable for x402 payment and therefore earn their place, though they do dominate the second sentence visually.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers what it does, where it pulls from, and what it costs. What is missing is any sense of what comes back — velocity metrics, message samples, or channel metadata — which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on, and the relationship between q and channels is left unexplained.

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 both q and channels documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how q (handle vs keyword vs ticker vs contract address) is resolved, nor how channels interacts with or overrides q, leaving that ambiguity to the schema alone.

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 names specific verbs and resources: scraping live Telegram public channels via t.me/s/ plus a DexScreener social/token velocity analysis. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of a 5 because the two capabilities are bundled without saying how they combine in a single call, and no sibling is named to contrast against.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no routing to alternatives such as token_forensics_preflight for contract-level analysis. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the phrase 'OSINT scraper' and 'social/token velocity analyzer'.

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