hyre-ask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the AI orchestrates multiple data sources and mentions a cost of $0.025, which are useful behavioral hints. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response format might be, or potential side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Ask any DeFi question in natural language') and packs the critical extra detail of the $0.025 cost. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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 is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description adequately explains what it does, how it works (orchestrating data sources), and a cost implication. It could mention the expected return format, but given the AI question-answering nature, it's reasonably complete. The description also naturally differentiates this tool from the many specialized 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 already documents the single 'query' parameter with the description 'Your DeFi question' (100% coverage). The tool description adds marginal meaning by clarifying the query should be a natural language question, but this is a baseline level since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: to ask any DeFi question in natural language, with AI orchestrating multiple data sources. This distinguishes it from the specialized sibling tools (e.g., hyre-token-verdict, hyre-pools) by providing a general-purpose interface rather than a focused concrete operation.

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 conveys when to use the tool: for any arbitrary DeFi question in natural language, implicitly covering cases not handled by the specific sibling tools. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement or a direct mention of alternatives, but the general-purpose framing provides clear context.

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