get_intel_sentiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the critical cost/fee behavior (0.001 SOL via x402), but does not disclose other traits like output format, rate limits, or consequences of omitting payment_tx. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the cost detail is appended as a separate sentence. Every part contributes 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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey what is returned and any prerequisites. It lists the data components (comment sentiment, bet momentum, pool trends) and mentions the fee, but lacks details about the response structure and the payment flow (e.g., how to supply payment_tx, what happens without it), which the schema partially addresses.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param-specific meaning beyond the schema, only implicitly linking payment_tx to the SOL cost. The market parameter is already well described in the schema as a public key.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get market sentiment analysis', elaborating with the included components (comment sentiment, bet momentum, pool trends). This distinguishes it from sibling intel tools like whale moves, resolution forecast, and market alpha by the content focus.

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 its use for sentiment analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The payment cost and protocol are mentioned, but there is no guidance on switching to other intel tools for different insights.

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