get_market_risk_regime

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the derivation from 'GBLIN's verifiable on-chain Crash Shield vs Chainlink-oracle peaks on Base,' notes polling cadence, and discloses the payment model ('Free by default; metered at $0.002 USDC only when the operator sets MCP_PAYWALL=true'). It does not detail response structure, but that is largely covered by the output schema.

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 front-loaded with the key action and decision trigger, then provides necessary context. It is somewhat dense with parentheticals and URLs, but every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage, output, derivation, and payment model. It avoids unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (on-chain derived data, conditional payment, third-party reference), the description is complete enough. It covers when to use, what it returns, how it is derived, polling guidance, independence from GBLIN holdings, and the payment mechanism. The output schema exists, so return value details need not be repeated. An agent has all it needs to invoke 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?

There is 1 parameter (_payment) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents its meaning and x402 payment proof requirement. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond mentioning the paywall condition, which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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+resource: 'Returns the current BTC/ETH risk regime (calm | elevated | crash), a severity score, and a risk posture (risk_on | reduce | risk_off).' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_treasury_state and analyze_treasury_health by focusing purely on market regime, and the 'Risk Gate' pattern framing makes its unique role explicit.

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?

Explicitly states when to call: 'When deciding whether to deploy capital, take on risk, or STAND DOWN in a volatile market, call this first.' It further says 'Poll each decision cycle' and that it is 'Useful to ANY trading or treasury agent — independent of holding GBLIN,' giving clear context for repeated use and no exclusions needed.

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