Equities dislocation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notably discloses that the tool is read-only, does not route equities, and burns 1 SERA, which is valuable cost and side-effect information. It does not mention pagination, default scope when ticker is omitted, or rate limits, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key metrics, followed by two short sentences that convey critical behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repeated 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return categories and the important side effect of burning 1 SERA. It would be more complete if it stated what happens when `ticker` is omitted, but the core information an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool is present.

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 optional `ticker` parameter is already documented as a filter. The description adds context about the output metrics, but does not add new meaning to the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 providing tokenized equities dislocation metrics: on-chain print vs last exchange close spread, 24h net flow, and accumulator/distributor classification. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the resource and data points are specific enough to distinguish it from routing and wallet 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 implies usage context by stating 'Read-only by design — Seranox does not route equities,' which tells an agent this is not for execution. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like seranox_build_route for routing or seranox_get_pair for standard pair data, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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