rwa_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a cost (~$0.001 via x402), which is a key behavioral trait, but does not mention other aspects like mutability (likely read-only), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The output behavior is not described.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: first defines purpose, second discloses cost. No redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully explain the tool's behavior. However, 'coverage' is ambiguous (list of assets? prices? details?). The return value is not described, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the single parameter 'asset_class' beyond what the enum and schema description 'Filter by RWA class' already provide.

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 it provides coverage data for Hyperliquid HIP-3 RWA perpetual assets, listing specific asset classes and noting that common aggregators do not cover these. The verb 'coverage' and resource specification are clear, and it distinguishes from sibling tools focused on funding, volume, etc.

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 implies use when needing data on non-standard RWA perpetuals, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The sibling tools are in different domains, so context is sufficient but not explicit.

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