getOndemandMarketSnapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing a cost (0.020 USDC on Base), which annotations cannot convey. It does not, however, disclose pagination, rate limits, latency, or how the 'verified safety metrics' are derived.

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 last sentence ('Returns verified safety metrics: Full Base DEX + Polymarket whale divergence + funding rate institutional snapshot') restates the opening sentence almost verbatim, wasting roughly a third of the text. The 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' prefix and USDC price line consume front-load real estate on non-informative framing.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does gesture at the returned datasets and a cost. But it omits parameter shapes, chain-handling (Base vs Solana is mentioned only in the usage line), and any expectation about response structure, leaving real gaps for a 2-parameter paid audit 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 coverage is nominally 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the schema's own parameter descriptions are pure boilerplate restatements of the tool name and add no meaning. The description likewise never explains the shape of 'assets' (addresses? symbols? chain identifiers?) or what 'include_polymarket' toggles. Neither artifact disambiguates the parameters.

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 opening sentence names a concrete resource (on-demand institutional market snapshot) and enumerates specific data components: Base DEX spot & TWAP prices, Aerodrome/Uniswap V3 liquidity depth, perpetual funding rates, and Polymarket whale orderbook divergence. That distinguishes it from point-data siblings like getCryptoPriceOnchain or inspectUniswapPoolState. However, the 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' framing is marketing noise that muddies rather than clarifies 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?

It states a when-to-use ('auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, or validating DEX liquidity'), which is real guidance. But the scope is so broad that it collides with many siblings (inspectBaseToken, checkWalletDrainer, analyzeEvmWallet, inspectUniswapPoolState) and gives no when-not condition or explicit sibling routing. Usage exists but is too diffuse to be decision-grade.

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