MIKO Insights

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

The 'readOnlyHint' and 'openWorldHint' annotations are already present; the description adds context that insights are domain-specific but lacks details on behavior (e.g., data source, freshness, or output format). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose. Efficient, but could be slightly improved by adding more specificity without extra length.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not explain what the insight output looks like, leaving the agent uncertain about the result format.

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%, and the description repeats the schema's parameter description ('token symbol, token address, or narrative topic') without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets 'MIKO's insights' on a token symbol, address, or narrative topic. The verb and resource are specific, but the term 'insights' is broad and does not strongly differentiate from siblings like miko.narrative, which may also provide topic insights.

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 the tool should be used for insights on specific tokens or narratives, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like miko.factcheck or miko.narrative, nor any exclusion criteria.

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