bop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Fetch balance of power' only indicates a read operation without details on rate limits, authentication needs, data sources, or output format. It fails to describe what 'fetch' entails (e.g., real-time vs. historical data, potential costs, or error conditions), leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is extremely concise with a single phrase 'Fetch balance of power', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but per the rules, conciseness is scored based on efficiency, not completeness.

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 complexity implied by 4 parameters (including required ones) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter meanings, usage scenarios, behavioral aspects, or what the tool returns, making it inadequate for an agent to effectively select and invoke this tool among many 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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about any parameters. It does not explain what 'symbol', 'interval', 'month', or 'datatype' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the 'balance of power' fetch. With no parameter details in the description, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Fetch balance of power' restates the tool name 'bop' (which likely stands for 'balance of power'), making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'fetch' and resource 'balance of power', but lacks detail on what 'balance of power' means in this context (e.g., a financial indicator, market metric) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'bbands' or 'rsi', which also appear to be technical indicators.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'rsi', 'macd', 'cci') that might serve similar analytical purposes, the agent has no basis for choosing 'bop' over others.

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