madeonsol_kol_coordination

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true/true/true/false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the response fields (peak_kols, exited_count, coordination_score), blacklisting behavior, and version details.

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 moderately long but efficient, front-loading the main purpose and version, then detailing response fields and blacklisting. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy.

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 explains key response fields (peak_kols, exited_count, coordination_score, market_cap fields) adequately. It covers the blacklist default and version, but could be more exhaustive given the complexity of the tool.

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 each parameter already has a description. The main description does not add significant meaning to the parameters themselves, though it mentions response fields that depend on parameters like min_kols and min_score.

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 provides 'KOL convergence signals (v1.2) — tokens being accumulated by multiple KOLs.' It lists specific response fields and distinguishes from other KOL tools by its focus on coordination signals.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, no exclusionary or comparative guidance is provided.

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