get_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses payment via x402, cost, generation time, caching, USDC on Base, refund policy, and the need for PRIVATE_KEY, including behavior without a key (returns 402 price terms). This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 longer but every sentence conveys relevant information: cost, output, timing, input, payment mechanics, refund, and key requirement. There is minor redundancy between 'PAID $1.00 via x402' and 'Pays USDC on Base via x402', but overall it is well-structured.

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 standalone tool with no output schema, the description covers input, output content, timing, caching, payment, refund, and failure mode. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and 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?

The schema has one parameter, market, with a description matching the text. The description repeats the slug instruction but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 performs a single-market deep-dive, synthesizing price action, order book, whale positioning, and news into a thesis with risks and a bottom line. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_index or get_digest which likely provide broader market views.

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 indicates the use case: a paid, on-demand deep-dive for a specific market, with instructions to pass the market slug from a URL or feed item. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the single-market scope and payment prerequisites provide clear context for when to use it.

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