audit_crypto_decision

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.