x402_intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pricing ($0.10 USDC per query), specific data sources (CoinGecko, DeFiLlama, CryptoPanic, Fear & Greed Index, GitHub), AI synthesis behavior, and authentication requirements. Minor gap: does not mention caching, rate limits, or data freshness.

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?

Excellent structure front-loaded with critical business logic (pricing), followed by data provenance, tier differentiation, auth requirements, and return format. Six sentences, zero waste—every sentence provides essential information not available in structured fields.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating it 'Returns: comprehensive analysis with market data, news, development activity, and AI synthesis.' Given the tool's complexity (multi-source aggregation, paid tier, AI processing), it covers cost, auth, data sources, and alternatives adequately. Minor gap on cache duration or real-time vs. stale data indicators.

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% with the 'coin' parameter fully documented (type, pattern, examples). The description mentions analysis is 'for a cryptocurrency' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Get[s] comprehensive multi-source intelligence analysis for a cryptocurrency' with specific verbs and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling x402_sentiment by labeling this as the 'premium tier' for comprehensive analysis versus the cheaper 'quick sentiment only' alternative.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'use x402_sentiment ($0.01) for quick sentiment only.' It also states prerequisites: 'Without X402_PRIVATE_KEY, only the free test endpoint is available,' giving clear conditions for full functionality.

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