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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious cost ($0.07 USDC) and clarifies the evaluation windows. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, but the term 'audit' and the context reasonably imply a non-destructive operation. The cost disclosure is significant and goes beyond typical descriptions.

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 short sentences. The first sentence precisely states the action and evaluation window; the second discloses the cost. Every word contributes value, with no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameters, windows, and cost. It does not describe the return format, but for a straightforward audit tool, this is a minor gap. The cost disclosure and clear scoping make it adequately complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming the window values and decision_id source, which is consistent with the schema. No additional format or constraints are introduced, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 audits a prior decision_id against subsequent market prices over a specified window. The verb 'audit' and resource 'prior decision_id' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_crypto_decision (which creates decisions) and get_crypto_forecast (which predicts).

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 the tool is used after obtaining a decision_id from get_crypto_decision, and the window parameter indicates usage for retrospective evaluation. Although it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate it from sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the operation costs $0.15 USDC and creates an auditable journal with a decision_id. However, it does not disclose the return format, side effects beyond creation, or how the decision_id is used later. It partially compensates for missing annotations but leaves significant 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 concise, two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. The cost is clearly stated in the second sentence. However, the phrasing 'Create an auditable market-intelligence journal' is slightly convoluted and could be more direct, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a paid tool. It does not explain what the agent receives in return (e.g., the decision itself, a record), how to use the decision_id for outcome review, or how this relates to sibling tools like audit_crypto_decision. The lack of return value description and tie-in to other tools makes it inadequate for effective use.

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 only parameter 'symbol' is fully documented with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already explains the parameter. Baseline score of 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 states 'Create an auditable market-intelligence journal' which is a specific verb+resource, but it does not match the tool name 'get_crypto_decision' and does not clearly indicate that the tool returns a decision. The mention of 'decision_id' hints at decisions, but the primary action described is creation of a journal, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies usage for creating an auditable journal for later review, but does not state exclusions or alternatives. Without reference to siblings like audit_crypto_decision or get_crypto_forecast, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage context.

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

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait—the $0.05 USDC cost—which is not present in annotations (there are none). It also enumerates the return components, setting clear expectations. However, it omits authorization details or error behavior, though these are less critical for a read-only retrieval.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the cost detail. It is concise with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations) and the richness of the schema, the description provides sufficient context with its output list and cost disclosure. Minor gaps remain: it does not clarify whether symbol is required or offer usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 symbol parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly names the resource (80% price interval, current price, point return, upside probability), effectively distinguishing this forecasting tool from siblings like get_crypto_signals or get_crypto_risk.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it returns, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the tool name and sibling context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the monetary cost ('Costs $0.05 USDC') and the components it checks (market-state, cooldown, freshness, model-context). However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor what happens on success or failure. The cost disclosure is valuable, but the lack of safety/mutation information prevents a higher score.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and context, then adds the cost. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and a clear purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or what the preflight result looks like. While the purpose is clear, an agent would not know whether the tool returns a boolean, a status object, or a list of checks. Additionally, there is no mention of side effects or required permissions. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter ('symbol') with a clear description and examples. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameter—it doesn't mention format, constraints, or relationships. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not need to compensate.

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: 'Run the market-state, cooldown, freshness, and model-context preflight step before creating a decision journal.' It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('preflight step'), and the phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals or get_crypto_risk by positioning it as a prerequisite for decision journal creation.

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 explicitly says 'before creating a decision journal,' providing clear context for when the tool should be used. It implies this is a preliminary step and distinguishes it from other crypto analysis tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance present in high-scoring examples.

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

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 discloses the cost ($0.02 USDC) and the nature of the data returned. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but for a read-only retrieval with a cost, this is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the action, the resource, the timing, and the cost in a compact form.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the user will receive (risk state, signal streaks, cooldown context). It could add more detail on how to interpret 'risk state' but is sufficient for a pre-analysis check.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter explanations. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and cost.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: 'current market risk state, signal streaks, and cooldown context'. It also notes the timing ('before deeper analysis'), distinguishing it from deeper analysis tools like get_crypto_decision.

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 phrase 'before deeper analysis' explicitly indicates when to use this tool, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity relative to sibling tools like get_crypto_preflight.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful transparency by disclosing the cost ($0.05 USDC) and implying a read-only operation via 'retrieve.' However, it does not describe return format, possible errors, rate limits, or whether network access is required. The phrase 'recent' is also imprecise about the data window.

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 short sentences with no redundant fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the unique cost detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. However, the description does not explain what the returned history contains (e.g., data fields, format, or how it relates to the 'Kronos' concept). It also lacks details on pagination or limits. This is a minimal viable description but not fully complete for an agent needing to anticipate results.

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 100% description coverage for the single 'hours' parameter, including range and default. The description does not add any further parameter details, but the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly. No extra semantics are needed.

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 uses the verb 'retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'Kronos market context history for supported crypto symbols.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals or get_crypto_forecast by focusing on history. However, the term 'Kronos' is unexplained and 'supported crypto symbols' is vague, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only practical hint is the cost, but that is not a usage guideline. Sibling tools exist for signals, risk, and forecasts, but no comparative context is given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a monetary cost ($0.05 USDC) and the nature of the data (current, ranked, fresh), but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The cost is a useful behavioral trait beyond a simple read.

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?

Two sentences, both concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the tool's purpose and scope, the second adds the cost. Every word contributes, with no fluff or repetition.

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 a simple read-only retrieval with no parameters or output schema. The description tells what coins, what signal elements (context, regime, freshness), and the cost. It is sufficiently complete for an AI to invoke correctly, though it could mention output format or filters.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered by its emptiness. The description adds meaning by explicitly listing the coins and the kind of signals returned, which compensates for the lack of parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description satisfies it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the exact resources (BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, ADA) and content (market-intelligence signals, ranked context, regime, freshness). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_single_crypto_signal or get_crypto_risk.

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 usage by listing specific coins and 'current' status, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are given, leaving the agent to infer that this is for multi-coin current signals.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the $0.02 USDC fee and the specific data types, which is useful context, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. This leaves notable gaps in behavioral 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states purpose, scope, and cost with no redundancy. Every word contributes meaningful 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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema with comprehensive parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, supported chains, event types, and cost. However, it omits explicit usage guidance and detailed return format, which are not critical for basic invocation but would enhance completeness.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (chain enum with default, hours with range and default), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds minimal parameter-related value beyond restating the supported chains, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource: 'whale-scale transfers, exchange flows, bridge flows, and stablecoin events' for Ethereum, Base, or Arbitrum. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals and get_crypto_risk, which focus on different data types.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool—when needing whale-scale transfer, exchange flow, bridge, or stablecoin data on a specific chain. It mentions the $0.02 cost as a practical consideration, but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does mention the cost ($0.05 USDC) and route ('compatibility lookup route'), which is useful, but it fails to mention return format, rate limits, or any side effects. The 'compatibility' reference is vague and not explained.

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?

Two concise sentences convey the core purpose and a key constraint (cost). No redundancy, front-loaded, 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is decent but not fully complete. It gives cost and route but omits what 'signal context' means, or how this differs from get_crypto_risk or get_crypto_forecast. Without an output schema, the return format remains unclear, making completeness only average.

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%, and the symbol parameter is well-described with examples. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantic detail is offered.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('current signal context for one crypto symbol'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crypto_signals (plural) and get_crypto_signal_history. However, there is slight ambiguity: the schema includes non-crypto symbols (AAPL, SPY, NVDA) while the description says 'crypto symbol'.

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 this tool versus alternatives. Words like 'current' and 'single' imply a distinction from history or plural tools, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given. The agent gets no help deciding between this and get_crypto_signals.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the key financial implication ($0.005 USDC), but does not explain what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, processing) or mention any authentication or balance requirements.

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 short, focused sentences that front-load the action verb 'Submit' and include the cost without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and key constraint.

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 comprehensive schema and simple submission purpose, the description covers the essential usage and cost. It could be improved by noting the response or confirmation behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does reinforce the type categories but does not add new parameter-level details, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: submitting paid feedback or specific request types (symbol, bug, integration) to ForgeMesh Crypto Signals. It uses a specific verb 'Submit' and names the resource, distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_' tools.

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 establishes clear usage context by enumerating the feedback categories and stating the cost, which is critical for deciding when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, though none exist among siblings.

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