Veroq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and succeeds by documenting the credit cost ('3 credits'), explaining return structures for each action (since no output schema exists), and noting the six valid alert type constraints. It does not mention auth requirements or alert expiration policies, preventing a perfect score.

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 excellently structured with clear headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE, CONSTRAINTS). Every sentence delivers unique information; there is no redundancy with the structured schema data, and the most critical information (the three actions) appears first.

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 absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description comprehensively covers the tool's behavior by detailing return values for all three actions, providing a valid usage example, and documenting operational costs. It adequately supports the complexity of a multi-modal tool (create/list/triggered) with conditional parameter requirements.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description adds value through a concrete JSON example showing parameter interaction and the 'CONSTRAINTS' section which reinforces the valid enum values for alert_type. The 'RETURNS' section also clarifies that 'threshold' accepts different semantic types (price level vs. sentiment delta) depending on 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 opens with a precise summary ('Create, list, or check triggered price/sentiment alerts') using specific verbs and clearly defining the resource domain. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling data-retrieval tools (e.g., veroq_ticker_price, veroq_social_sentiment) by emphasizing the alert/monitoring functionality.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section explicitly states the tool is for 'automated monitoring' and details the three distinct actions ('create', 'list', 'triggered'). While it provides clear context for each mode, it lacks explicit exclusions or pointers to alternative tools for simple data lookups.

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