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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add real value: a concrete price (0.005 USDC via x402), the sort order (youngest pair first), and the returned fields (price, liquidity, volume, risk flags). It omits pagination, retry/failure behavior, and what payment flow the agent must complete before the call succeeds.

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 content is short, but the cost is stated twice ('0.005 USDC' up front and again as 'Cost: 0.005 USDC via x402'), and the opening is a fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of function. Trimming the duplicate price would make it tighter.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers what is returned, how it is ordered, and what it costs, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only meaningful gap is payment mechanics and result-set size behavior.

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 both `limit` and `minLiquidity` are already documented with defaults, setting the baseline at 3. The description references liquidity and volume only as return fields, not as filter semantics, so it adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 resource (newest Solana token profiles / fresh launches) and the ordering rule ('youngest pair first'), which an agent can distinguish from get_trending or get_token_report. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is only implied: 'newest' and 'fresh launches' suggest a recency-discovery use case versus get_trending's popularity angle, but the description never states when to prefer this tool or when not to. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: a paid x402 call costing 0.005 USDC, multi-source aggregation, and deduplication of overlapping headlines. It still omits what happens on payment failure or rate limits, and gives no sense of response shape.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the resource and sources, but the price is stated twice ('0.005 USDC' in the lead and again as 'Cost: 0.005 USDC via x402' at the end), which is wasted repetition in a two-sentence description.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers sources, dedup behavior, payment requirement, and the Fear & Greed component. It falls slightly short by not indicating the return format (e.g., article shape or how the Fear & Greed value is presented), which matters since no output schema exists to compensate.

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 both q and limit are already documented with types and constraints. The description only echoes the optional keyword filter and adds nothing about the limit parameter or filter matching semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting — 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+resource pair — fetching latest crypto headlines plus a Fear & Greed index — and names the exact upstream sources (Cointelegraph, Decrypt, The Block, CoinDesk). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_price, get_trending, or get_new, which return market/trending data rather than editorial news.

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?

Usage is only implied through the word 'news' and the optional keyword filter; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_trending or get_new, and no exclusions. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the resource name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a reasonable job: it discloses the paid x402 model with exact cost, a hard cap of 5 markets per call, and which venues are aggregated. It omits what happens on payment failure, whether results are cached/live, and how over-limit requests are handled.

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?

Front-loaded and dense — resource, venues, metrics, limits, and price all arrive in a few fragments. The 0.01 USDC cost is stated twice (lead and tail), a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (funding, OI, mark/index, basis, spreads), from where, at what limit, and at what price. Return shape and pagination/error behavior are unspecified, but no output schema exists to compensate, leaving a small residual gap.

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 optional 'markets' parameter already documents defaults (SOL,BTC,ETH), the max-5 cap, and supported symbols. The description restates the cap and adds no syntax or formatting meaning 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?

States a specific resource and action: a perpetual-futures snapshot (funding, OI, mark/index, basis, cross-venue spreads) across three named Solana venues. The enumerated metrics and venue names make it unmistakable against siblings like get_price, get_token_report, or get_trending without needing to name them.

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?

Scope is implied clearly enough (Solana perps data, max 5 markets, costs 0.01 USDC) that an agent knows when the tool applies. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to a sibling (e.g., use get_price for spot quotes), so routing guidance is left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the paid nature (0.005 USDC via x402), the upstream source (Jupiter Price API v3), and the 20-token batch ceiling. It stops short of saying what happens on partial failures or whether a failed lookup is still charged.

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 payload and the key constraint are front-loaded, and the whole definition is two tight sentences. The price is stated twice — '0.005 USDC' at the start and again as 'Cost: 0.005 USDC via x402' at the end — which is minor redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input forms, batch limits, payment, and enumerates the returned fields, which effectively substitutes for a missing output schema. Only edge-case behavior (unknown ticker, partial batch failure) is left out.

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 schema already documents the comma-separated format and the 20-token max, so the description only adds the notion that any Jupiter-listed ticker is accepted plus extra examples (BONK, WIF). That is a real but modest semantic addition over the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('get Solana token prices') and enumerates the exact data returned: live USD price, 24h change, liquidity, market cap. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, get_token_report, so the agent must infer the split between a lightweight batch price check and a full report.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'up to 20 tokens in one call' signals batch quoting and the symbol-or-mint acceptance tells the agent what inputs are valid. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_token_report or get_rugcheck, and no guidance on what to do when a token is not Jupiter-listed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important non-obvious behavior: the call is paid (0.01 USDC via x402). It also pre-announces the report's contents and the risk-score range. It omits failure behavior — what happens on an invalid mint, an unfunded x402 payment, or a token with no liquidity data.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the report contents. Minor waste: the price is stated twice ("0.01 USDC" at the start and again as "Cost: 0.01 USDC via x402" at the end).

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 read tool with no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields and the risk-score range adequately substitutes for a missing output schema, and the cost disclosure is exactly the kind of extra context an agent needs before calling a paid endpoint. Only error/payment-failure behavior is missing.

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 the single `mint` parameter is already documented as a base58 SPL / Token-2022 address. The description reinforces the accepted mint types but adds no format, validation, or example detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource: a rug-risk report for SPL / Token-2022 mints, with the report's contents enumerated (authorities, extensions, supply, top-10 holders, LP lock/burn, age, 0-100 risk score). It is clear what the tool returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_token_report, which an agent could plausibly reach for the same mint.

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?

Scope ("for any SPL / Token-2022 mint") implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to or from get_token_report despite that being the obvious overlapping sibling. The agent must infer the choice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most consequential trait: this is a paid call costing 0.08 USDC settled via x402. It also previews the output shape (a verdict plus bundled data sources). It does not say whether payment is automatic on invocation or whether a failed/invalid mint still incurs the charge, which is the main remaining gap.

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 definition is front-loaded and short, leading with the resource and value proposition. It loses a point for stating the price twice — once parenthetically ('— 0.08 USDC') and again as 'Cost: 0.08 USDC via x402' — which is pure redundancy in a three-sentence description.

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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the report contains, the verdict format, and the payment requirement. Only the payment execution mechanics and failure/refund behavior are left unstated, which is a modest gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that 'mint' is a base58 SPL / Token-2022 mint address. The description adds no further semantics such as accepted formats, chain constraints, or examples, so the 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 names a specific resource and output: a Solana token due-diligence report with a pass/caution/avoid verdict. By enumerating the bundled components (rug check, Jupiter price/changes, DexScreener market data, socials) it implicitly distinguishes itself from the narrower siblings get_rugcheck and get_price, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'One-call due diligence' hints at the use case: fetch everything at once instead of several narrow calls. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance — nothing tells the agent to prefer the cheaper get_rugcheck alone when a full report is unnecessary, and no mention of what to do if the paid call fails.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the most important behavioral trait: it is a paid call costing 0.01 USDC via x402. It also names the upstream source and the data dimensions returned. It stops short of describing rate limits, freshness/caching, or failure behavior when payment is not settled.

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 the sentence is short. The cost is stated twice ("0.01 USDC" at the start and "Cost: 0.01 USDC via x402" at the end), which is redundant but not harmful.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields, and the payment requirement is stated, so an agent knows what it gets and what it costs. Only secondary details like result ordering guarantees and payment failure handling are missing for a three-parameter read tool.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only indirect mapping ("liquidity" to minLiquidity, "volume"/"new" to sort values) and does not explain the boosts vs gainers distinction or any constraints beyond the schema.

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+resource ("Trending and newly promoted Solana tokens") and adds the data source (DexScreener) plus the returned fields (price, liquidity, volume, age, risk flags). This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling get_new, which likely also surfaces newly promoted tokens.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for a trending/promoted token list. There is no explicit statement of when to pick it over get_new, get_rugcheck, or get_token_report, and no exclusion criteria despite clear sibling overlap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses a paid x402 flow at 0.02 USDC and flags that PnL is approximate rather than authoritative. It does not cover failure modes (invalid address, sparse-history wallets) or latency/volume expectations, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and purpose, then the price, then the returned content — a sensible ordering with no filler prose. The only waste is the cost appearing twice, once in the header and again in the trailing "Cost: 0.02 USDC via x402" sentence.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description essentially serves as the return-value contract, and it enumerates holdings, swaps, PnL, and behavior signals well while also disclosing the payment requirement. Remaining gaps are minor: response shape granularity and behavior on invalid or empty wallets.

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%, with both `address` (base58) and `limit` (RPC-dependent range, private RPC allowing more) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about either parameter — no defaults, no advice on selecting a limit — so the baseline of 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?

Names a specific resource (Solana wallet) and enumerates the outputs: SOL/token holdings with USD values, recent swaps, per-token flows with approximate PnL, and bot-like behavior signals. It is clearly distinct from token-centric siblings such as get_token_report and get_rugcheck, though it never explicitly states that distinction.

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?

"Profile any Solana wallet" implies when to use it, but there is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., base58 address validity), and no routing to alternatives such as get_token_report when only a single token is of interest. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load. It discloses two behaviorally important facts: the call is free (contrasting with the USDC-priced siblings) and it reports whether a signer is configured, implying this call itself needs no signing. It doesn't state rate limits, response size, or what happens without a signer, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with cost and scope, then the ordering instruction. The one-word "Free." opener earns its place because cost is the primary differentiator against paid siblings.

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 no-argument discovery endpoint with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (USDC prices, PayTo, network, params, signer status). That is exactly the information an agent needs before deciding which sibling to call next.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The listed field names in the description describe the response, not inputs, and do not conflict with the empty schema.

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?

"List all Solana Alpha API tools" names a specific verb and resource, and the enumerated contents (USDC prices, PayTo, network, params, signer status) tell the agent exactly what the listing contains. This clearly separates it from the siblings (get_price, get_news, etc.), which each fetch one data type.

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?

"Call this first" gives an explicit ordering directive that is the main usage decision for a catalog tool. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions or explicitly pointing at siblings as alternatives, but for a zero-parameter discovery endpoint the guidance is operationally sufficient.

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