oracle

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: LLM provides answer with reason, anchors a SHA256 hash to Base and Solana, and costs $0.05 USDC. It sets proper expectations about verifiability and cost.

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?

Description is a single focused paragraph covering key points. It is concise but could be broken into bullet points for easier parsing. No fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, cost, and use cases. It lacks explicit return format specification, but the context is largely complete.

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 already describes the 'question' parameter as a yes/no question. The description adds context about the answer format (one-sentence reason) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is a yes/no oracle that returns an answer (YES/NO/MAYBE) with a reason and anchors it to two blockchains for verifiability. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'attest_decision' or 'grade' by its blockchain anchoring and specific use cases.

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 lists use cases: prediction-market commits, conditional contracts, time-stamped opinions, settling bets. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool over siblings, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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