obol_info

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 that the operation is free, which is a light behavioral hint, and implies read-only behavior via 'Get'. However, it does not mention whether any authentication is needed, rate limits, or how the response is structured. For a simple info tool this is acceptable but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 object, then lists what is included and a key trait ('Free'). There is zero redundancy; every word adds value. This is a model of concise specification.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is almost complete. It tells the agent exactly what information is available (endpoints, pricing, payment mode) and notes it is free. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the response format (e.g., JSON structure), but for a simple info endpoint this is not critical. Overall it meets the needs of an agent selecting and calling the tool.

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 schema trivially covers 100% of them. As per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output rather than input.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Obol API info'), and enumerates the exact content returned: 'all available endpoints, pricing, and payment mode.' It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target specific wallet, swap, or health functions by focusing on meta-level API details.

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 intended use is evident from the description: an agent should call this tool when it needs general API information (endpoints, pricing, payment mode). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention prerequisites, but the context is clear enough that no confusion with siblings is likely, so it earns a 4.

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