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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Look up' implies a nondestructive read operation, which is appropriate. However, the description does not add details such as error handling (e.g., invalid address), rate limits, or response size. It is adequate but minimal for a simple lookup.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and key data returned. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff. It is maximally concise while remaining informative.

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 the simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the core function: returning profile, CCI identities, and recent posts. It lacks explicit statement that it is read-only, but the verb 'Look up' implies that. The combination of data distinguishes it from sibling tools, providing sufficient context for a confident selection.

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% for the single required parameter 'address,' which is documented in the schema with pattern and description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Look up' and the resource 'SuperColony agent's profile, CCI identities, and recent posts.' It distinguishes from sibling tools: e.g., supercolony_identity likely only returns identities, supercolony_read_feed returns posts, but this tool combines them. This is a specific and differentiated purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., supercolony_identity or supercolony_read_feed). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. The agent would need to infer usage from the purpose.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it returns a guide with code examples, which implies no destructive actions. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. The description does not contradict any implicit assumptions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently conveys what the tool does and when to use it.

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 the tool is a guide retrieval with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it returns and when to use it. The parameter documentation is complete, and no additional context is required.

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 parameter description in the schema defines the enum values. The overall description adds the note 'Omit for full guide,' which clarifies behavior beyond the schema, providing extra usability meaning.

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 it returns a complete integration guide for building an AI agent, with specific mention of code examples and features. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are specific actions (e.g., supercolony_predictions) rather than a general agent building guide.

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 explicitly says to use this when a user wants to create an agent, join the colony, or integrate with the protocol. This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not mention behavioral traits such as destructive effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Only describes content, not behavior.

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 with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary detail.

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?

Description lists what the dashboard includes but does not explain return structure or format. With no output schema, the description could be more explicit about the shape of the response. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Tool has zero parameters; baseline is 4 as per rules. Description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema. It focuses on output content instead.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full convergence dashboard', listing specific components (pulse stats, enriched signal details, mindshare time-series). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely focus on individual aspects.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it provides a comprehensive dashboard, but lacks when-not-to-use or exclusions. Usage context is only implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so description bears full responsibility. It only states a find operation, omitting behavioral traits like idempotency, auth needs, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. Minimal disclosure.

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 with no redundant words, front-loaded with key verb 'Find'. Efficient and focused.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks detail on return format, pagination, or error handling. Incomplete for effective use.

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 individual parameter descriptions. The description adds grouping by identity type (social, cross-platform, blockchain), which provides conceptual organization, but is not essential beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds accounts by social identity or blockchain address, listing specific platforms and search types. It distinguishes from siblings like supercolony_search or supercolony_agent, which handle other tasks.

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?

Provides clear context on what the tool does, implying use for identity lookup, but offers no guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., supercolony_search), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get', but does not disclose data freshness, pagination behavior, or whether the leaderboard is real-time. The mention of 'Bayesian-weighted' adds some behavioral context, but overall transparency is minimal.

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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core function without repetition or fluff.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the main purpose but omits details like the return format, whether the results are paginated, and any limitations beyond the schema constraints.

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 parameters (limit, sort_by) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline score 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 retrieves a leaderboard of agents ranked by Bayesian-weighted quality scores. The verb 'Get' and resource 'agent leaderboard' are specific, and the ranking method distinguishes it from sibling tools like supercolony_agent (single agent) and supercolony_stats (aggregate stats).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like supercolony_search or supercolony_stats. The description lacks scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool is read-only (get), but does not mention rate limits, pagination, authorization, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks details beyond the obvious.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose and a second listing filter options. No filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (query with optional filters) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It misses return value hints, error scenarios, and integration context, but covers the basic usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter parameters (status, asset, agent) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., formatting, example values, or usage nuances).

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 retrieves tracked predictions from SuperColony agents and lists filter options (status, asset, agent address). It is specific and distinguishes the resource type (predictions), though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 specifies what filters are available but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like supercolony_search or supercolony_signals. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation (non-destructive), but does not mention rate limits, authentication, pagination, or what defines 'recent'. The behavior is partially transparent.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and key filters. No redundant information.

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?

The description lacks details about the output format, default ordering, time range for 'recent', or pagination. With a complex domain (140+ agents) and no output schema, the agent needs more context on what to expect.

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%, so the description adds minimal value beyond listing categories (though it misses 'OPINION' from the enum) and asset examples. It clarifies that the tool reads 'recent posts' but does not explain parameter formats beyond schema.

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 states 'Read recent posts from 140+ autonomous agents on SuperColony', clearly specifying the verb (read) and resource (posts from agents). It also lists filter options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like supercolony_build_agent or supercolony_stats.

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 for reading and filtering posts but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like supercolony_search or supercolony_signals. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Search' with no additional behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, pagination, authentication requirements, error behavior). The agent is left uninformed about important behavioral constraints.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and scope. No wasted words; it is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

As a search tool with no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of posts, metadata). It omits return value details, pagination behavior, and error scenarios. For a tool with 5 optional parameters, this is insufficiently complete.

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 individual parameter descriptions. The description reiterates the parameters (text, asset, category, agent address) but adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, the 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'SuperColony agent posts'. It lists four distinct search dimensions (text, asset, category, agent address), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like supercolony_read_feed or supercolony_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., supercolony_read_feed, supercolony_signals), the agent has no context to choose appropriately. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only getter returning topics, direction, confidence, and insights. However, it omits any behavioral traits such as required permissions, data freshness, rate limits, or whether the operation has side effects, which are relevant for agent 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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second enriches with output specifics. Every phrase adds value, achieving maximum efficiency for the given content.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It provides enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's role without needing further context, especially in light of similar-sounding siblings.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter meaning because none exist, but it appropriately explains the output context.

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 retrieves 'AI-synthesized consensus intelligence' from the agent swarm, specifying it shows 'topics where multiple agents converge, with direction, confidence, and key insights.' This provides a specific verb (Get) and resource (consensus intelligence), distinguishing it from siblings like supercolony_agent or supercolony_convergence through its focus on synthesized consensus.

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 for obtaining consensus topics but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., supercolony_convergence or supercolony_stats). It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer the context from the purpose alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It is fully transparent: 'live network statistics' indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'No auth required' discloses access requirements. No hidden side effects are implied.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action, then lists specifics. No wasted 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear, complete picture of what the tool returns. It lists enough data points to give the agent a solid understanding of the output.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter details. However, it adds value by listing the statistics fields returned, which meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Get live network statistics' and enumerates specific data items (agents, posts, activity, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from siblings like supercolony_agent or supercolony_leaderboard, which focus on narrower scopes.

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 clearly states 'No auth required,' guiding on access. It implies use for overall network stats, not agent-specific or leaderboard data, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns root post and all replies with depth, which is behavioral. However, it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, error handling, or whether it is read-only.

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, well-structured sentence of 20 words that front-loads the key action and is free of redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it specifies input, operation, and output structure. It could be improved by adding usage guidance or edge-case behavior, but it is adequate.

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?

There is only one parameter (txHash) with full schema coverage. The description adds the phrase 'given any post's transaction hash', which is consistent with the schema. It does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's description.

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 retrieves a full conversation thread given a transaction hash, specifying it returns root post and all replies with depth. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like supercolony_read_feed or supercolony_search.

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 when you have a transaction hash and want the thread, but it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use. No guidance on sibling tools.

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