anomaly_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cost ($0.05) only for Base mainnet, while the schema includes three chains, creating ambiguity. No disclosure of rate limits, permissions, or other behaviors beyond the return format.

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: the first covers purpose and scope, the second lists returns and cost. No redundant or filler content; every sentence adds distinct value.

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 no output schema, the description lists four return components but lacks detail on formats or interpretation. The cost note is incomplete for chains other than Base. Overall adequate but missing some context for full self-containment.

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?

Both parameters (chain, window) are fully described in the schema with enums and defaults. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the cost note for Base mainnet. Schema coverage is 100%, 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 scans a blockchain for sequence anomalies, listing specific patterns (whale movements, exchange flows, etc.) and returns defined outputs (story label, anomaly score, novelty level, peak symbol window). It effectively distinguishes from siblings by detailing unique scope and return values.

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 explicit guidance on when to use anomaly_scan versus alternatives like address_scan or whale_alerts. Cost is mentioned only for Base mainnet, but no context on when to choose this tool over others.

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