navi_hype_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (definition, buy/neutral/sell thresholds, raw inputs) and adds important behavioral context: 'Paid via x402: $0.005 USDC per call on Base, settled automatically.' It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a simple lookup tool this is adequate transparency.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and contents, the second provides the valid name list and cost note. No filler words; every part contributes to enabling agent invocation.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (definition, thresholds, raw inputs), which inputs are valid (full name list), and cost. There are no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating many more valid names than the schema's examples ('fees-30d, revenue-annualized, ps-ratio, funding, market-share, price-7d, open-interest, volume-24h, tvl-bridge, hip3-rwa, buybacks-af, staking, auction-hip3, mcap-fdv, momentum-rsi'), giving agents a fuller understanding of acceptable values.

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 'Deep dive on one HYPE engine signal' with specific contents (definition, flywheel relevance, thresholds, raw inputs), distinguishing it from siblings like navi_hype_engine which presumably handles the entire engine. The list of valid names further clarifies the scope.

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 context is clear: this tool is for deep-diving on a single signal, and the valid names list guides which signal to pass. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use navi_hype_engine for an overview/aggregate view), so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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