traders.score

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the score range, five dimensions, and the 'Pro feature' access restriction. It implies read-only behavior through 'Calculate,' though side effects are not explicitly stated.

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, efficient sentence that conveys purpose, dimensions, output range, and usage context without any redundant 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?

For a simple scoring tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, output (score 0-100), dimensions, usage context (copy trading), and access restriction (Pro feature). No output schema is needed given the explicit score range.

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% for the single parameter 'address,' which is already well-described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 calculates a conviction score (0-100) for a trader across five dimensions, differentiating it from sibling tools like traders.analyze or traders.discover by specifying a scoring function focused on copy trading reliability.

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 provides context for when to use the tool ('Higher scores indicate more reliable traders for copy trading') and notes it's a 'Pro feature,' implicitly guiding usage. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives among sibling tools.

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