get_visions_guide

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool returns a complete contract, details events, and importantly states subscription is free (no LINK required). This adds behavioral context beyond just 'get code'.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: first sentence states the core action, second details the return value and a key benefit (free). No unnecessary words.

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 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and output. However, it omits information on how to use the returned code or any prerequisites, which would enhance completeness.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description's job is to explain what the tool does. It clearly explains the output (Solidity code) and its purpose, which adds meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns Solidity code to subscribe to Pythia Visions and listen for VisionFired events. It distinguishes from siblings like get_vision_history (history data) and get_events_guide (different guide) by specifying this is for code generation.

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 usage when needing subscription code, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_events_guide for other event types). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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