Theme read

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds material facts an agent could not otherwise know: $0.09 USDC per call via x402 on Base, settlement only on success, and a 10–180 s latency window. It also flags the response as untrusted data rather than instructions, which is real behavioral guidance for a paid open-world read.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each following clause carries a distinct fact (scope, price, settlement, latency, disclaimer, injection warning). It is dense without being padded, though the disclaimer and untrusted-data note could be tightened.

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 paid open-world tool with no output schema, the description supplies cost, settlement, latency, and safe-handling guidance. What is missing is any indication of response shape beyond the three named dimensions (field names, whether momentum is numeric or narrative), which an agent would need given the absent output schema.

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 the single parameter is documented with its own example and length bounds, so the description need not carry it. The inline theme examples ('AI agents, L2s, memecoins') mildly reinforce the domain but add no syntax the schema lacks. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live read on one market theme') and enumerates the payload it returns: sentiment, narrative, momentum. The theme examples (AI agents, L2s, memecoins) make the resource concrete. It never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings such as vedetta_narrative, vedetta_social, or vedetta_trend, so an agent cannot route on purpose alone.

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?

'Live read' implies freshness and the pricing/latency lines frame the cost of use, which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of cases, and no pointer to any of the 19 siblings. Usage must be inferred.

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