oracle_scorecard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses the outputs: calibration coverage, on-chain track record, grading study, and verifiable merkle-commitment timing. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or exact output format, but for a no-argument scorecard tool, the key behavioral aspects are covered.

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 somewhat stylized with rhetorical flourishes like 'check us before trusting us' and the parenthetical 'do the 90% bands actually cover 90%?', but it remains reasonably compact. The key details are front-loaded, and the 'Use this when' section provides actionable guidance without excessive bloat.

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, so the description compensates by summarizing the main returned elements: rolling 30-day coverage, recent 93.3% figure over 181K+ predictions, on-chain track record, and grading study. It also provides the merkle-commitment context for verifiability. It could be more precise about the exact response structure, but for an agent deciding whether to call this scorecard, the context is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'no arguments.' There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the statement removes any ambiguity about invocation requirements.

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 identifies the tool as an oracle scorecard that returns rolling 30-day calibration coverage, on-chain track records, and a blind grading study. It states that it takes no arguments and frames its purpose as a trust-but-verify check, making the tool's function easy to distinguish from forecast or loan tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when: an agent wants evidence the calibration claims are real, or a trust-but-verify check before paying for forecasts or loan terms.' This gives clear conditions for use, though it does not name specific sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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