market.alpha

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds information the annotations do not: a hard price (10.00 USDC) and the fact that access is gated on an external payment. It does not explain what happens with an invalid/reused/expired payment hash, and the word 'Purchase' sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true even though the payment itself happens outside the tool.

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?

Two short sentences, with the capability stated first and the cost prerequisite second. No filler or repetition; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose and the payment gate. It leaves open operational questions for a paid, open-world call (payment freshness/one-time use, how fresh the 'right now' data is), but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 paymentHash description already specifies the amount (10.00 USDC) and chain (Base), so the description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating the price. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Purchase') and a concrete resource ('aggregated intelligence on which contracts and wallets other AI agents are analyzing right now'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like contract.audit, wallet.profile, or token.analyze. It stops short of naming or contrasting an alternative sibling, and 'aggregated intelligence' is a slightly fuzzy abstraction of what is actually returned.

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 only usage-relevant content is the cost prerequisite ('Requires 10.00 USDC') plus the 'right now' framing implying recency-sensitive use. There is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings such as contract.audit or wallet.profile, and no when-not conditions, so usage must be inferred.

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