marcus_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions cost ($1.00) which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose other traits like whether it's read-only, destructive, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the analysis entails beyond 'forensic.' For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 highly concise with three short sentences that each add value: defines the tool's output format, suggests a use case, and states cost. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and cost but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format beyond post count/char limit, or how it differs from siblings. It's minimally adequate for a 2-param tool but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full context and results.

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 fully documents both parameters (token_address and chain). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as how these inputs affect the forensic analysis. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 generates 'X/Twitter-thread-ready forensic analysis' with specific output characteristics (5-8 posts, each ≤280 chars) and mentions it's 'Perfect for research posting.' It specifies the verb (forensic analysis) and resource (token/blockchain via parameters), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like marcus_forensics or marcus_quick.

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 implies usage context with 'Perfect for research posting' and mentions cost, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like marcus_forensics or marcus_quick. It offers some implied context but lacks clear when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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