House view for one asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: per-call pricing ($0.09 USDC via x402 on Base), pay-on-success settlement, and a 10–180 s latency window an agent must budget for. The untrusted-data handling warning is also useful, though it never explains that the non-idempotent hint means repeated calls can return a changed "current" view.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then cost, latency, disclaimer, and injection warning. Each sentence carries distinct information relevant to an agent deciding whether and how to call it; nothing is repeated or padded.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essential extras: what the response conceptually contains, what it costs, how long it takes, and that output must be treated as data. The one meaningful gap is the absence of sibling routing, which matters given the crowded vedetta family.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema ("One ticker, e.g. BTC", 1–20 chars), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about ticker formatting, case sensitivity, or acceptable symbol universe beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("current house view on one asset") and names the payload contents (stance, confidence, key drivers), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as vedetta_consensus or vedetta_snapshot, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over vedetta_consensus, vedetta_snapshot, or the other ~19 siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The cost/latency notes are operational facts, not selection guidance, so routing is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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