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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full burden. It reveals that the tool returns the signing address, balance, chain info, and policy bounds, and that it indicates whether execution is enabled. However, it doesn't specify exact fields or format, but given the simplicity and no params, it is adequate. No contradictions.

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, with the most critical information (use this first, learn your address) front-loaded. Every phrase adds value: identity, usage, gas-paying ability. No fluff or 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 zero-parameter self-status tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, why to call it, and when to call it. No missing information for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds value by explaining what the output will contain, which compensates for the lack of schema detail. Baseline 4 for no params 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 states the tool reports the agent's own on-chain identity, including address, balance, sequence, chain, execution status, and policy bounds. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gno_status (network status) and gno_get_account (account lookup) by emphasizing it is self-referential. The verb 'learn' and resource 'agent's own identity' are specific.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool first before acting, to discover the address and gas-paying ability. It implies when not to use (before acting) and implicitly contrasts with alternatives like gno_get_account for other accounts. Clear guidance on when to use.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the request consumes its normal cost units and that it is a read operation, but it omits auth requirements, rate-limit implications, whether the call itself counts against quota, and what the returned quota headers represent.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the action. The phrase 'standard block-list request' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema, so the description should say more about what 'quota headers' contain or what the response looks like. It also does not clarify whether the quota is account-level, API-key-level, or request-level.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and fully described; the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read current quota headers.' It also clarifies that the read is performed via one standard block-list request. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from any sibling, though no sibling appears to cover API quota usage.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives. An agent can infer it is for checking quota, but the definition does not state the conditions that should select this tool.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses sort order (newest first) and the pagination contract, but says nothing about what a block object contains, the default page size, or read safety (implied, not stated). Adequate, not rich, for a read-only list endpoint.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the purpose/pagination facts are front-loaded before the sibling hand-off. The clipped, fragment-style phrasing is efficient though slightly telegraphic.

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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers ordering, pagination and sibling routing, but leaves return shape, default limit and empty-page termination behavior unaddressed. Reasonable for the tool's complexity, with visible gaps.

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 50%: 'cursor' is documented in the schema as the next_cursor from the previous page, while limit has no guidance on defaults or practical sizing. The description's phrase 'cursor-paginated' reinforces the loop but adds no syntax or limits beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits.

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 the resource (blocks), the ordering (newest first) and the pagination model (cursor) in a compact clause, which is enough to distinguish it from the single-block sibling it explicitly names. The implicit verb 'list' is obvious from context, though never written.

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 routing is explicit: 'One block: gno_get_block' tells the agent exactly when to switch siblings. It doesn't spell out the inverse condition ('use this when you want many blocks') or mention paging until exhaustion, but the alternative pointer is the main thing an agent needs.

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 provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies an exhaustive read-only enumeration ('Every bridge stack') and names what data is included, but never states that it is a full snapshot, whether results are paginated, or how large the response may be.

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?

A single dense sentence with the scope ('Every bridge stack') front-loaded and the protocol list plus data categories following. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of telling the agent what comes back: chains, clients, vouchers, escrow. That is enough to call a zero-parameter snapshot tool correctly; only return shape and size remain unspecified.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the useful scope note that all three bridge protocols are included, which the empty schema cannot convey.

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 the resource precisely (bridge stacks across IBC, Union, Hyperlane) and enumerates the content dimensions: connected chains, clients, vouchers, escrow. The verb is only implied by 'Every', i.e. a full listing, and the nearest sibling gno_bridge_transfers is not referenced, so the boundary between 'bridges' and 'bridge transfers' has to be guessed.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as gno_bridge_transfers for individual transfer flow. An agent must infer that this is the configuration/state overview and the other is the activity feed.

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 two useful traits: results are ordered newest first and retrieval is cursor-paginated. It omits authentication requirements, result envelope, what a transfer record contains, and whether failed/pending transfers are included – substantial gaps for a bare tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the ordering/pagination traits packed in afterward. Every clause carries 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers identity, ordering, and pagination, which is the minimum needed. It leaves the agent unsure how this differs from gno_bridges and what a returned transfer record actually looks like, which matters given the large sibling set.

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 50%: cursor is documented in the schema, but limit has no description anywhere. The description mentions 'cursor-paginated' and ordering but adds no syntax, defaults, or bounds beyond what the schema already states, and never explains the undocumented limit parameter.

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 (cross-chain transfers) and scope ('across all bridge stacks'), which distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like gno_bridges or gno_wallet_transfers. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction, keeping it below 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative such as gno_bridges or gno_wallet_transfers. Scope ('all bridge stacks') implies this is an unfiltered global feed, but that is the only implied usage signal.

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 provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds a vague cost warning ('expensive units') but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how the cumulative window behaves, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences with no wasted language. The core computation is front-loaded before the cost caveat.

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 three-parameter analytics tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits key details such as interval semantics, time-window behavior, return format, and what 'expensive units' actually means.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only loosely implies a token scope and a time dimension ('over time'), without explaining the token format, days meaning, interval choices, or defaults.

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 states a specific metric (buy minus sell pressure, i.e. cumulative volume delta) scoped to one token. It is clear what the tool computes, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as gno_ohlcv or gno_dex_series.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gno_ohlcv or gno_dex_series. 'Costs expensive units' is a cost warning, not usage guidance about appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the type of data returned but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination or limits exist, whether authentication is required, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Recent launches') and immediately specifies the key attributes. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is direct and efficient. It earns top marks for conciseness.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but leaves some ambiguity. It does not specify the output structure (e.g., whether it returns a list, the format of holdings or signals, or any time window for 'recent'). Given the tool's simplicity, these gaps are moderate, but with no annotations or output schema, a bit more detail would improve 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none is needed. It focuses on the output, which is appropriate. No additional value is required in this dimension.

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 that the tool provides 'Recent launches with creator holdings and creator-sell (rug) signals.' It identifies a specific resource (launches) and two key attributes (creator holdings and rug signals), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gno_launch_radar or gno_whales, so it falls short of a perfect clarity score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking recent launches with creator holdings and rug signals, but it does not state when it should be preferred over similar tools or when it should not be used. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the description alone, which is insufficient given the large set of sibling tools.

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; it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — that calls consume expensive units — which is real value beyond structured fields. It says nothing about read-only nature, data freshness/snapshot timing, result size, or caching, which matter for an analytics aggregate.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the returned metrics come first, the cost caveat second. No filler, no redundancy, and the highest-value warning is not buried.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the metric list usefully stands in for a return-value description, which is a real strength. However, scope remains unspecified (all venues? all pools? which chains/timeframes besides 24h/7d?) and no annotations exist to fill the gap, so an agent still cannot predict result boundaries or granularity.

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 zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly frames the tool as a fixed, no-argument aggregate rather than implying missing filters.

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 enumerates concrete resources returned (venue and per-pool TVL, 24h/7d volume, fee and emission APR, per-token volume), so an agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like gno_dex_series, gno_pools, or gno_pool_ohlcv, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the many related DEX/pool tools in the sibling list, and no alternatives are named. The only downstream signal is a cost warning ('Costs expensive units'), which implies caution but gives no routing rule.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral traits: read-only (no state change) and 'fee included once' (no double fee accounting), which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about staleness/liveness of the quote, error behavior on an invalid route, or what the caller gets back, leaving material gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the read-only/route-scoped nature front-loaded and the prerequisite after it.

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?

Four required params with no output schema and no annotations mean the description should sketch the return value (amounts out, fee, price impact) and whether routing is simulated. It covers fee semantics but not the response shape or failure modes, so it is adequate but incomplete for this complexity.

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% and all four params are self-documented (including the raw-integer amount pattern), so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that 'route' must come from gno_dex_route; it adds no unit or format semantics 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 and resource ('GnoSwap router quote') plus scope ('for a known route'), and disambiguates from the sibling route tool by name. An agent can tell this apart from gno_dex_route or gno_price_list without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite: find a route with gno_dex_route first, which effectively names the alternative for route discovery. It lacks an explicit when-not (e.g., don't use for executing the swap), so not a 5.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — the search is bounded to direct and two-hop paths, so a null result does not prove no route exists — which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about whether this is a read-only simulation, what permissions or rate limits apply, or whether the route is executable, leaving significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. The trailing 'discloses its search scope' is mild self-referential meta-commentary that a reader could do without, but it costs almost nothing.

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?

Three required params and no output schema, so the agent has no structured view of what a 'route' returns — path, hops, expected output amount, price impact — and the description does not fill that gap. It is adequate to trigger the call but not to interpret the result.

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 (in, out, amount) are already documented including the raw-integer amount constraint. The description adds only the loose mapping of 'two tokens' to in/out, which is already obvious; 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 verb+resource ('best route between two tokens') and narrows it with 'bounded direct and two-hop discovery', so an agent knows this is a route-finding tool rather than a raw quote or hop listing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like gno_dex_quote or gno_swap_hops, which keeps it 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?

The phrase 'bounded direct and two-hop discovery' implies a usage constraint (routes longer than two hops are out of scope) but never states when to prefer this over gno_dex_quote or gno_swap_hops. Usage is inferable rather than instructed, which is the definition of a 3.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it omits whether this is a read-only query, what the return format or aggregation is, what the default time window or interval behavior is, and whether volume is denominated in USD or tokens. The scope clause adds a little context, but the behavioral disclosure is thin for a data-query tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. Its terseness is more an under-specification problem than a conciseness problem, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin to call the tool correctly without opening the schema and guessing parameter semantics. It does not explain the time-series output or the interval/days interaction.

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 only 33%: the pool parameter is documented in the schema, but days and interval are not. The description does not compensate—it mentions 'over time' and 'one pool' but never explains the meaning of days, the interval enum units, or the default behavior when those parameters are omitted.

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 metric and resource ('DEX volume') and a time-series presentation ('over time'), plus its scope ('whole venue or one pool'). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic pool listings, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as gno_pool_ohlcv or gno_dex_analytics.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus gno_pool_ohlcv, gno_dex_analytics, or gno_sparklines. The phrase 'whole venue or one pool' hints at scope but does not tell an agent which conditions select this series tool over the alternatives.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first'), which is useful, but says nothing about what counts as 'discovered', whether results are capped, how pagination interacts with the ordering, or whether the data is cached/live.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the ordering constraint is stated early. Brevity is appropriate, though it borders on under-specification for a feed endpoint.

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 list/feed tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell the shape of returned items, size limits, or how 'discovered' is determined.

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 50% schema coverage, only offset is documented in the schema as 'next_offset from the previous page' and limit is undocumented. The description adds no parameter information, so the paging contract for limit and the interaction with ordering remain unclear.

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 the resource (packages discovered on chain) and the ordering (newest first), which is more than the tautological title 'Newly found packages'. It implicitly distinguishes listing from single-package retrieval like gno_get_package, but never names a sibling to sharpen the 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as gno_get_package or gno_gpao_package. The agent must infer from the name that this is a feed of recent deployments.

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 key traits: the operation is read-only, it never mutates state, it routes through ABCI vm/qeval, and it returns a raw typed result string. What is missing is failure behavior (invalid expression, unknown pkgpath) and any rate-limit or latency expectation.

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 what the tool does, followed by an example, the return shape, and the safety constraint. No sentence is redundant.

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 2-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description usefully states the return form ('raw typed result string') and the non-mutating guarantee. Only error/edge-case behavior is omitted, which is a small remaining 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%, so both parameters are already documented with the same examples used in the description. The description adds only the framing 'against a realm' for pkgpath, which the schema's example already conveys, so it is a baseline case.

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 ('Evaluate') plus resource ('a read-only Gno expression against a realm') and the underlying mechanism (ABCI vm/qeval). The 'read-only ... never mutates state' framing implicitly separates it from the gno_call/gno_simulate/gno_swap siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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's emphasis on 'read-only' and 'Never mutates state' implies the usage context (querying realm state without a transaction), but it never states when to prefer this tool over gno_call, gno_simulate, or gno_render, nor any prerequisites such as the realm needing to exist.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload shape at a high level (raw error + class), but says nothing about ordering, result volume, pagination behavior, or whether the call is read-only — leaving most behavioral traits unrevealed for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and the return content front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon-separated filter clause is slightly clipped but stays efficient.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and five optional parameters, the description should explain defaults, result ordering, and the meaning of since_height / pagination. It covers only the two self-documenting filters, so an agent still lacks what it needs to page through results or scope by height.

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 60%, and the description adds meaning for two filters (realm, class) but is silent on since_height, limit, and offset. The two filter semantics are already fully documented in the schema, so the description contributes little beyond the baseline.

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 (failed transactions) plus the payload it returns (raw chain error and error class), which distinguishes it from the generic gno_get_transactions sibling. No explicit sibling reference is made, but the failure-focused scope is unambiguous.

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?

'filter by realm or class' implies how to narrow results but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, and never names the alternative transaction tool for successful/normal transaction lookups. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies an aggregate read of counts but says nothing about ordering, whether results are paginated (limit/offset exist), how many rows a default page returns, or whether the count is per-realm or global.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the core metric front-loaded and the filter options trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves obvious questions unanswered.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters at 25% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the returned statistics contain or how pagination behaves, which matters for an analytics endpoint.

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 only 25%, but the description partially compensates by explaining 'app' as an app label filter and 'q' as a text match on the function name. 'limit' is left unexplained beyond its bounds, and the interaction between q and app filters is unstated.

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 metric and resource: call frequency per realm function. It distinguishes itself implicitly from gno_failed_calls and gno_realms by focusing on per-function call counts, though it never names those siblings.

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?

It mentions the available filters but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as gno_failed_calls for error analysis or gno_realms for realm-level stats. The agent must infer the selection criteria from sibling names 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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement that it is a read-only lookup, no indication of whether labels are user-set or protocol-derived, no pagination or rate-limit note. "Overview" implies a composite read but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

A single clause with no filler, and the scoping phrase (the address) comes first. It is efficient, though it reads as a fragment rather than a structured sentence, and brevity here shades into under-specification.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum enumerate what the overview returns, and "activity, counts, labels" is too abstract to substitute for a return description. The core invocation is unambiguous, so it is adequate rather than insufficient.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage ("g1… bech32 address"), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the address format and adds no meaning beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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?

"Wallet overview for a g1… address" names a resource and a loose verb, and "activity, counts, labels" hints at contents, but it never says what an overview actually contains or how it differs from near-neighbors like gno_get_balances or gno_wallet_pnl. An agent can guess it's an account summary but cannot confidently pick it over siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. With siblings such as gno_get_balances, gno_wallet_tokens, and gno_wallet_pnl covering overlapping ground, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (ABCI auth/accounts) and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or side-effect behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently names the return content and data source.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description names the main return values and source. Without an output schema it could say more about response shape, but the core information needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% for the single address parameter, and the schema already documents the expected g1… address format. The description only reinforces that the address is the target and adds no syntax or filtering semantics 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: native coin balances plus account number/sequence for an address. It also distinguishes native coin balances from token balances, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like gno_get_account or gno_token_balance.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling-routing instructions.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add value by naming the return contents (transactions, proposer, time), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior for a nonexistent or future height, or how the embedded transaction list is bounded.

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?

A single short fragment with the key idea and return shape front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The terseness borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description gives the essentials of what is returned. It falls short on error/edge-case context and on how it relates to the many sibling lookup tools.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ("block height"), so the schema already documents it fully. The description's "by height" merely restates the schema without adding format, range, or edge-case meaning.

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 the resource (block), the lookup key (height), and the fields returned (transactions, proposer, time), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is telegraphic rather than verb-led, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like gno_get_transactions or gno_get_events, which also surface transactions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus gno_get_transactions, gno_get_events, or gno_search. No prerequisites, no mention of valid height ranges or whether the block must already exist.

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not disclose that results are paginated (limit/offset exist only in the schema), what the default of 50 implies, ordering of the returned events, or whether events are indexed historically or only recent — all material for a read tool an agent will call repeatedly.

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?

A single tight fragment with no filler, and the grouping behavior is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but that is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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 five parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to clarify the result shape and pagination contract. It hints at grouping by realm and type but leaves the pagination defaults, ordering, and event age/coverage entirely unstated.

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 only 60%: q, app, and type are documented, while limit and offset have no descriptions beyond numeric bounds. The description's 'with filters' adds no meaning — it does not say whether filters combine with AND, whether q matches realm vs package path, or how app maps to a realm label.

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?

It names the resource (emitted Gno events) and adds a useful structural detail — results are grouped by realm and type — plus the existence of filters. But it never states the verb or scope explicitly (chain-wide? single block? live vs historical?), and with 40+ siblings like gno_get_transactions and gno_search, nothing distinguishes when this event feed is the right source.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The phrase 'with filters' implies querying, but an agent gets no signal on whether to reach for this versus gno_get_transactions or gno_get_block to inspect on-chain activity.

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 provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and lists output categories, but does not state permissions, failure behavior, or how this differs from mutating or rendering tools.

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 a single compact phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded, though being a noun fragment rather than a full sentence makes it slightly less clear than it could be.

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 a fully documented input schema, the description gives enough to know it returns package metadata, deployer, and functions. However, with no annotations or output schema, and with near-neighbor siblings, it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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%, and the sole pkgpath parameter already has an example in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description identifies the resource (realm/package detail) and enumerates the kind of content returned (metadata, deployer, functions). It is clear what the tool retrieves but does not explicitly distinguish it from closely related siblings such as gno_package_files.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools covering packages, calls, evaluation, and rendering, the agent receives no routing signal.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose ordering (newest first) and pagination style (cursor), which are the key behavioral traits for a feed. It omits freshness/lag, result cap interaction with limit, and error behavior, which leaves meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 tight sentences: what it returns and how it's ordered first, then the disambiguation. Zero filler and nothing buried.

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-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, pagination, and the main filtering surfaces. It would be stronger if it sketched the returned record shape (since there's no output schema) or noted the default page size, but it is sufficient to call 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so app, cursor, and success are already documented in the schema; the description only restates that you can filter by app label or success. The limit parameter (default 50, max 200) is not characterized at all in prose, though the schema handles it.

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 ('Recent classified transactions') plus ordering ('newest first') and pagination ('cursor-paginated'), and explicitly names the sibling it is not (gno_wallet_transfers). An agent can distinguish it from gno_wallet_transfers and gno_get_events without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative for wallet-scoped activity ('For a specific wallet's activity use gno_wallet_transfers') and implies use for a global recent feed with app/success filters. It stops short of an exhaustive when-not list (e.g., vs gno_get_events or how to page), but the primary routing decision is explicit.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits beyond the schema: results are sorted newest-first and carry per-tier voting power. It omits read-only confirmation, default result count, pagination, and return shape, which leaves meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with resource and ordering, with zero filler. The sibling pointer is telegraphic ('Votes per proposal: ...') and could be phrased more plainly, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what a proposal record contains and how the limit behaves. It covers ordering and cross-tool navigation but leaves the return structure and default paging behavior to inference.

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?

Only one optional parameter (limit, 1-50) exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not mention it at all — no default, no max, no effect on result set. A 3 reflects the minor scope of the gap rather than adequacy of coverage.

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 the specific resource (GovDAO proposals), the ordering (newest first), and an included field (per-tier voting power), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It also implicitly separates itself from gno_governance_votes by deferring vote data to that tool.

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 clause 'Votes per proposal: gno_governance_votes' routes the agent to the sibling for vote detail, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when this tool should be chosen versus gno_gpao_queue or other governance-adjacent siblings, and gives no exclusions.

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 provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether votes include abstentions, whether voter addresses or weights are returned, or whether results are paginated.

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?

Six words with no waste, but it is a noun phrase rather than a front-loaded statement of action and scope, so the brevity comes at the cost of information rather than from efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it does not — the shape of a vote record (voter, option, weight, timestamp) is entirely undisclosed. For a tool whose whole value is its return payload, this is a substantial 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%, so the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'proposal id' in the schema. The description adds only the confirmation that the id refers to a GovDAO proposal; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 fragment identifies the resource (votes) and narrows scope to a single GovDAO proposal, which is marginally more than the title. But there is no verb and no differentiation from the sibling gno_governance, which an agent could easily mistake for the same data at a different granularity.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus gno_governance, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that a proposal id must first be obtained). An agent must guess from the 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 it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: tracked=false when GPAO never saw the package, which is exactly the edge case an agent would otherwise misread. It says nothing about read-only safety, errors, or what the record otherwise contains.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource up front and the edge case trailing. Slightly telegraphic, but every clause earns its place.

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?

Input is fully covered and the tracked=false note addresses the main ambiguity, but with no output schema the description never says what fields the approval record actually returns, leaving an agent guessing about the response shape.

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% and the only parameter is documented there as a gno.land package path. The description adds nothing about the path format or filtering behavior, so it sits at the baseline.

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 the specific resource: one package's GPAO approval record. The singular scope implicitly distinguishes it from the list-oriented gno_gpao_queue, but it stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or using a clear verb like 'fetch'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the per-package lookup counterpart to gno_gpao_queue from the singular phrasing 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 burden and does disclose real behavior: it is mainnet-scoped and returns an error result on other networks. It does not say whether this is a read-only view, whether the queue is paginated or truncated, or how large the result typically is — gaps that matter for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the network constraint. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the shape of the result (three package states) and the network scope. It stops short of describing the record fields or ordering, but that is a minor residual gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so per the baseline the description needs only to justify the absence of inputs, which it does by framing this as a network-wide queue listing rather than a targeted query.

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 (mainnet package-approval queue) and enumerates its contents (waiting, enabled, blocked packages), which is more informative than the title alone. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling gno_gpao_package, which covers similar ground, leaving the agent to infer the split.

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 mainnet-only caveat ('Other networks answer unsupported_query') is genuinely useful scoping guidance an agent would otherwise have to learn by failure. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over gno_gpao_package or when a queue view is the right choice, so usage is only implied.

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 still discloses the key behavioral trait: it is best-effort and "Null fields mean the realm does not expose that getter," which tells the agent how to read partial results rather than treating nulls as errors. It does not cover permission requirements, rate limits, or the full returned field set, so it falls short of 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: what it does, how to interpret nulls, what to pass, and where to go instead. Front-loaded and zero filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so partially by naming balance, owner, and URI and explaining null semantics. It stops short of enumerating the full getter set (e.g., name, symbol) an agent might receive, which is the only remaining gap 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description restates what the schema already declares (owner → balance, tokenId → owner and URI) and adds only the "and/or" combinability hint; it contributes little beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 and resource (best-effort read of a GRC721 NFT realm via standard getters) and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, gno_nft_holdings. An agent knows this is a per-realm getter probe, not a holdings enumerator, without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly maps arguments to outcomes: "Pass owner for a balance and/or tokenId for owner and URI," and names the alternative for a different task ("To list the NFTs an address owns, use gno_nft_holdings"). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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 provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; the diagnostic framing implies a safe read, but that is inference rather than disclosure. It does not say whether the call is expensive, rate-limited, or whether stale results are possible, though for a zero-parameter health probe the disclosure need is modest.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler, and the most important signal (indexer/classifier health) is front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 diagnostic with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the three return dimensions (health, tip lag, freshness), which partially compensates for the missing output schema. It stops short of describing the response shape or how to interpret a degraded result.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 the concrete things the tool reports: indexer and classifier health, chain tip versus indexed tip, and data freshness. That is more specific than a tautology, but it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling diagnostic tools gno_status, gno_agent_status, or gno_api_usage.

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 metrics listed (chain tip vs indexed tip, freshness) imply the diagnostic use case — check before trusting other data — but the description never says when to call this versus gno_status or gno_api_usage, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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 provided, so the description carries the entire burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement of read-only behavior, time range, granularity, pagination, or rate limits. 'Time series' weakly implies historical data, but nothing tells the agent the window, interval, or response shape for a tool with no output schema.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is structurally sound. However, the brevity here is under-specification rather than discipline — nothing meaningful is packed into the sentence beyond the title.

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 simple one-parameter tool this could be adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the agent still has no idea what time range, granularity, or units the series returns. The description leaves the most decision-relevant behavior undocumented.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented there, including that it must be a canonical token_path from gno_prices or gno_token_registry. The description's 'for a token' merely echoes the schema, 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?

The description names the resource ('Holder-count time series') and its subject ('for a token'), so the agent knows roughly what data comes back. But it is essentially the title restated, with no verb, no scope, and no differentiation from the close sibling gno_token_holders (current holders) or gno_whales — an agent cannot tell from the text why it would pick this over those.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of gno_token_holders or any other holder-related sibling, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is implicit in the word 'series', which the agent must interpret on its own.

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 provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only enumerates example entity types. It says nothing about whether the result is a fixed taxonomy or dynamically computed, whether it includes counts or addresses, or whether the categories are stable.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words and the key examples up front. It earns its place, though it is so terse that structure barely applies.

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 zero-parameter enumeration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state what the caller receives (a list of labels? a mapping to addresses?) and how it relates to gno_label. None of that is present, leaving the agent to invoke blind.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics gap exists.

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 the resource ('labeled entities') and gives concrete examples (whales, arbitrageurs, distributors), so an agent can guess it enumerates a label taxonomy. But it's a noun phrase with no verb — it never says whether it lists, counts, or describes entities, and it overlaps ambiguously with siblings like gno_label, gno_whales and gno_smart_money without differentiating itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With ~70 siblings including gno_label and gno_whales, the agent gets no help deciding between this tool and those.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Resolve' implies a read, but the description doesn't say what happens for an unlabeled address (empty result vs. error), whether results are cached, or what the response shape is. For a zero-annotation tool this is a meaningful 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, the input, and the payoff, plus examples that anchor what a 'label' is. No wasted 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves the return value (label structure, multiple labels, miss behavior) entirely unspecified. An agent can call it, but cannot predict or interpret the result confidently.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting it as a 'g1… address'. The description adds no format, validation, or accepted-input detail beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb ('Resolve') plus resource (an address) and named output class (entity and app labels), with concrete examples (GnoSwap, faucet). This distinguishes it from data-returning siblings like gno_get_account or gno_get_balances, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No statement of when to reach for this tool versus gno_get_account or gno_search, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the one-line purpose.

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 provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints that results include graduation progress and zDex pool data, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, default page size, ordering, or what a market record contains. For a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity is under-specification rather than economy: it omits the verb and the filtering behavior that would make it actionable.

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 two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral detail and it supplies almost none. An agent would have to guess at default limit, valid status values, and result shape before calling it.

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 0% for both parameters. The description does not explain what 'limit' caps (rows? markets? 500 max is only in the schema) or which values 'status' accepts, even though the free-form string with no enum most needs explanation. 'Graduation progress' is the closest hint, but it does not map explicitly to the status filter.

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 the resource (launchpad/venue markets) and enumerates three content types: bonding-curve launches, graduation progress, and zDex pools. However, it never states a verb ('list', 'fetch', 'query') and gives no differentiation from the several sibling launch tools (gno_launch_quote, gno_launch_radar, gno_launch_snipers), so an agent cannot be certain whether this returns a collection or a single market.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus gno_launch_radar, gno_launch_quote, gno_launch_snipers, or gno_pools. The only implied usage is 'launch markets', which leaves the agent to infer the selection condition from names 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 it does disclose two non-obvious traits: it is read-only and returns a sentinel value 'quote_unavailable' for unsafe curve states instead of a number. However, 'unsafe curve states' is undefined and the response shape is never described, leaving the agent unsure what a successful quote actually contains.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the read-only/quote framing is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than too verbose, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what a quote returns (price, output amount, fees, curve state), yet it only mentions a failure sentinel. Combined with undocumented token/side parameters, an agent cannot confidently call this or interpret the result beyond the error case.

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 only 33% — only 'amount' is described in the schema. The description adds nothing about 'token' (address? symbol? id?) or about 'side' (enum buy/sell), including the fact that 'side' is optional and presumably defaults to buy. The gap the schema leaves is not compensated.

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 ('quote') and resource ('bonding-curve'), which separates it from the DEX-oriented siblings like gno_dex_quote and gno_dex_route. It never explicitly names the launchpad siblings it complements (gno_launchpad, gno_launch_radar), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'bonding-curve quote' implies the context (launchpad tokens pre-DEX), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as gno_dex_quote for tokens that have graduated to a pool. An agent must infer the routing decision.

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 delivers almost nothing: no recency window, sort order, refresh cadence, pagination, or return shape. Only 'newly launched' hints at recency ordering, which is thin for a discovery/monitoring tool.

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 short, but short by under-specification rather than economy — a four-word fragment with no complete sentence. There is nothing to front-load because no verb or scope boundary is stated.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters mean the description must explain result contents and behavior, and it does not. An agent cannot tell what fields come back or how 'newly launched' is bounded in time.

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 single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The 1-200 range and default behavior are undocumented in natural language, so the description adds nothing over the bare 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 phrase names the resource (tokens and pools) and a distinguishing scope qualifier ('newly launched') that separates it from siblings like gno_pools and gno_token_registry. However it is a bare noun fragment with no verb, so it never states what the tool actually does (list? rank? stream?).

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus gno_pools, gno_token_registry, or gno_swap_signals, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit cue is 'newly launched', leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: read-only is merely implied, and it never states the time window, aggregation, limits, or shape of the response. For a data tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves the agent guessing about behavior.

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 a single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient density — front-loaded meaningful content is absent.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and no statement of return structure or timeframe. For a tool whose entire job is returning sniper activity data, the description does not give enough for an agent to know what it will get back or when to prefer it.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains the pool key and its origin in gno_launch_radar. The description's 'one launch pool' merely restates the schema rather than adding format or constraint detail, 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?

The phrase 'Sniper activity on one launch pool' names the resource (sniper activity) and its scope (a single pool), but offers no verb or framing of what is returned or performed. Against siblings like gno_launch_radar, gno_launchpad, and gno_launch_quote it gives no positive differentiation beyond the word 'sniper'.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The only implicit workflow hint is the schema's 'from gno_launch_radar', which the description itself never repeats or builds on.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that results pair packages with realm import counts, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, or what the include_audit toggle changes.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is slightly cryptic as a fragment and omits important details, but it is efficiently sized.

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?

The tool is structurally simple, but the only optional parameter is completely unexplained and there is no output schema. An agent cannot determine what include_audit does, how results are shaped beyond 'packages with import counts,' or when this should be chosen over gno_library.

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 has one parameter, include_audit, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions this parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a specific resource (pure packages under gno.land/p/...) and a specific metric (how many realms import them), so the core purpose is understandable. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' and does not differentiate itself from the singular sibling gno_library or from gno_package_files.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gno_library or gno_package_files. The resource mention implies it is for browsing library packages and their import popularity, but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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 behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that unknown paths return not_found, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe permission/auth considerations. The detail-view framing implies a safe read operation, but this is not stated.

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 two short sentences with no wasted language. The resource and returned data are front-loaded, followed by the relevant error behavior.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description gives a useful high-level account of what is returned and how unknown paths are handled. It does not detail the output structure, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the path parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the not_found behavior for unknown paths, which is useful but does not add substantial meaning 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?

The description identifies a single library detail lookup and names the main contents returned: event breakdown, caller realms, and deployment. It implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling gno_libraries, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 by 'One library' and the required path parameter, suggesting this is for detail retrieval on a specific library. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of gno_libraries or other package-related tools.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the detection pattern. It does not say the result set is heuristic/scored, does not describe the time window implied by `days`, pagination behavior around `limit`/`offset`, defaults, or cost/latency, all of which matter for an unannotated query tool.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the positive definition followed by the exclusion. Nothing is redundant and every clause carries signal.

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 three-parameter analytical query with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: return shape, time-window semantics, and pagination are all unaddressed. What it does say about detection scope is good, but the operational picture an agent needs 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 0% and the description never mentions `days`, `limit`, or `offset`. The constrained enum of 1/7/30 days and the 1000-row cap are discoverable only from the schema itself, and the description adds no interpretation of what a window or page means.

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 concretely what is detected: "same-pool, same-block sandwich-pattern candidates," which is a specific pattern rather than a vague 'MEV activity' restatement. The explicit negative clause ("Not general MEV or arbitrage detection") further sharpens the boundary, though the verb is implicit — the agent must infer this returns a list of candidate entries.

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?

Provides an exclusion ("not general MEV or arbitrage") which helps rule out misuse, but offers no positive guidance on when to reach for this tool and never names an alternative sibling (e.g. gno_swap_signals or gno_wash_trades) for related analyses. The routing value is one-sided.

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 provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions the returned data categories but says nothing about read-only behavior, authentication, rate limits, response shape, or pagination.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently sized for a one-parameter tool, though it is arguably too terse to be complete.

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 should do more to explain what is returned. It lists the high-level data categories but does not describe return format, aggregation level, or response structure. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 one parameter and the schema description is fully covered at 100%, including a precise instruction to use the full collection ID from gno_nft_holdings.by_collection. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the resource (a GRC721 collection) and the data dimensions it surfaces (holders, supply, distribution), but it is a noun phrase with no verb such as 'get' or 'fetch.' It also does not differentiate this tool from nearby siblings like gno_nft_holdings or gno_grc721.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling to choose instead. The only contextual hint is in the parameter schema, not the description, and it merely says where to obtain the collection ID.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits: results are cursor-paginated, and LP positions are returned as NFTs (a non-obvious semantic that could otherwise skew counts). It says nothing about data source freshness, whether unrevealed/empty collections appear, or per-item return 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the LP caveat, then the routing rule. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the name or schema.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a solid job of what an agent needs to select and page through it. The remaining gap is the shape of each holding (contract address, token ID, collection name), which an agent must discover by calling.

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 67% — address and cursor are documented in-schema, limit has only min/max bounds. "Cursor-paginated" reinforces that cursor is a continuation token, but the description adds no meaning about what limit counts (NFTs vs collections) or pagination edge behavior, so it does not compensate for the partial coverage.

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 (GRC721 NFTs), owner scope (a wallet owns), and breadth (across all collections), plus a notable inclusion rule (GnoSwap LP positions count as NFTs). This clearly separates it from gno_grc721 and gno_nft_collection without needing the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "Prefer this over gno_grc721 for 'what does X own'", naming the alternative and the query pattern that selects this tool. No when-not condition or mention of adjacent siblings like gno_wallet_tokens/gno_nft_collection, so it stops short of full routing coverage.

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 provides almost none: it doesn't say whether this is a read-only query, what the default interval or limit is, what time range is covered, or how candles are ordered. 'OHLCV candles for a token' only restates the title.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any actionable 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 3-parameter time-series tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape, defaults, and relationship to gno_prices. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at interval/limit 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?

At 67% schema coverage, the schema documents token and interval but leaves limit (1-1000) undescribed, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — no default interval, no note that limit caps returned candles, no guidance that token must be a canonical token_path.

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 data resource (OHLCV candles) scoped to a token, so an agent knows roughly what data comes back. But it has no verb and does nothing to distinguish it from nearby siblings such as gno_prices or gno_holder_series, which also return token time series.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like gno_prices (spot price) or gno_holder_series (holder time series). The only implied guidance is that a token is required, which the schema already states.

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. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the parenthetical names the two result categories, which is genuine behavioral signal. However, it says nothing about behavior when pkgpath is unknown or invalid, whether results are paginated/truncated, or how large packages 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with no filler. The parenthetical adds concrete detail rather than padding.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is adequate but thin: it does not describe the return structure (file paths vs. full source, signature formatting) or failure behavior for bad paths, both of which an agent must guess before calling.

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% (the single pkgpath parameter is documented, albeit tersely as 'package pkgpath'), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format guidance — e.g. whether pkgpath is a fully-qualified path like 'gno.land/r/demo/boards' — which would be the one place extra value was possible with only one parameter.

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: 'List a package's source files ... and exported function signatures', and it even names the underlying query paths (vm/qfile, vm/qfuncs), which tells an agent exactly what data surfaces. It is distinguishable from the nearer siblings gno_get_package and gno_eval, though it never names them to sharpen the boundary.

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 inspecting a package's source/exported API once it has a pkgpath. There is no explicit when-to-use versus gno_get_package (package metadata) or gno_eval (function evaluation), and no stated prerequisites such as the package needing to exist on chain.

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the read is a point-in-time snapshot or historical, whether it is expensive/rate-limited, or what the response shape looks like. Read-only semantics are only implied by 'profile', never stated.

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?

A single eleven-word sentence with zero waste, but that is concision by omission rather than by discipline. It is front-loaded with the resource but never gets to scope, format, or usage.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what a 'depth profile' actually contains (bins, ranges, cumulative liquidity, units). None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the return value or judge whether this tool fits its question.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('pool path/id'), so the schema already does the documentation work. The description adds only the contextual hint that the pool is a GnoSwap pool, with no guidance on path formatting or ID forms beyond the schema. 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 names the resource ('Liquidity depth profile') and the domain ('GnoSwap pool'), so an agent knows roughly what data comes back. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and 'profile' is ambiguous — snapshot vs. time series, order-book bins vs. tick ranges. It also gives no signal to distinguish it from siblings like gno_pools or gno_pool_lp_providers.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus gno_pools (pool listing) or gno_pool_lp_providers (LP composition). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named — the agent must infer selection from the 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 must carry the safety/behavior burden. It usefully flags indexed data, nullable price estimates, separately verified owner status, and split pagination modes, but omits read-only-ness, permissions, error behavior, and 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?

Two dense sentences, no filler, and pagination guidance is placed where it is needed. Slightly packed but not bloated.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should explain returned structure and operational constraints more fully. It gives a rough data summary and pagination modes, but an agent still lacks field-level return expectations or read-only assurance.

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 25% (only 'pool' documented), so the description must do work. It clarifies that 'before' pages events and 'offset' pages contributors, but leaves 'limit' and the exact semantics of 'pool path/id' to 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 identifies the resource as indexed pool contributions and verified current position owners, but opens with a noun phrase rather than a verb and never says explicitly whether it lists, aggregates, or resolves providers. It is distinguishable from gno_pool_depth and gno_pool_trades by its owner/contribution focus, but the action remains implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternative is named. The only routing-like statement is pagination mechanics ('Events page by before; contributors page by offset'), which does not tell an agent when this tool should be chosen over pool-depth or holder tools.

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 behavioral burden, yet it only states the data type and scope. It does not disclose read-only semantics, pagination limits, default interval, rate limits, or return format beyond the OHLCV label.

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 short sentences with zero wasted words. The primary scope is front-loaded and the sibling alternative follows immediately.

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?

The description is sufficient for tool selection but thin for invocation given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage. An agent still lacks default interval/limit behavior and return-shape details, though the OHLCV naming and pool-key schema help.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning for 'limit' or 'interval' (e.g., defaults, units, or how the candle window is chosen), and only indirectly hints at the 'pool' parameter via 'one pool's pair'.

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 resource as OHLCV candles scoped to one pool's pair, and explicitly contrasts this with gno_ohlcv for token-level candles. It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling, though it does not use an explicit retrieval verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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?

It directly names the alternative tool (gno_ohlcv) and the condition that selects it: token-level candles across pools. It does not list exclusions or prerequisites, but the primary routing guidance is explicit.

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 and no output schema, the description does useful work by disclosing that market can be null and that meta.market_as_of dates the snapshot. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behaviour, or rate limits, so the behavioral picture is only partly filled in.

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 with zero waste: payload contents first, the null/meta nuance second, the alternative tools last. Every sentence carries 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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the return shape, the null case and the timestamp field, which is most of what an agent needs. The missing piece is pagination guidance for limit/offset.

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 0% for limit and offset, and the description never mentions them, so the agent gets no semantics for either parameter. With two undocumented params, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the resource (GnoSwap pools) and the fields returned (token pair, fee tier, creation details, market figures), which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic DEX tools. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list all pools', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away for single-pool lookups: 'For a single pool use gno_pool_depth, gno_pool_lp_providers, or gno_ohlcv.' That is a clear alternative with a stated condition. It does not address when to prefer gno_dex_analytics or gno_pool_trades, so it is not a full routing guide.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that swaps are 'settled' and 'recent' and that stats are included, but it does not explain ordering, freshness window, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'whole-pool stats' contains.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool's scope.

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 DEX trade/statistics tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description leaves important context unstated: return shape, stats definition, ordering, and limit behavior. It identifies the subject but is not complete enough to call confidently without opening the schema.

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 50%: the pool parameter is documented as coming from gno_pools, but limit has no schema description and the tool description never explains its meaning, default, or maximum. The phrase 'one pool' reinforces the required pool parameter but 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?

The description clearly states the resource and scope: recent settled swaps for a single pool, plus whole-pool stats. It is distinguishable from broad DEX tools, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead of gno_swap_hops or gno_pool_ohlcv.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gno_swap_hops, gno_pool_ohlcv, or gno_dex_series. The only implied usage is that a pool key is required, which is already evident from the schema.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the pricing methodology and the cost warning, but it does not describe return shape, refresh cadence, or other operational details an agent might need.

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 fragments front-load the purpose, alternative, and cost warning with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema price listing, the description covers purpose, method, alternative, and cost. It could say more about the returned structure, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already fully describes the empty input object.

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 explicitly states the tool returns every token's price using VWAP with an oracle cross-check, and it distinguishes this from the single-token sibling by naming gno_prices. The resource and scope are immediately clear.

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?

It routes the agent to gno_prices for a single token and warns that this tool consumes expensive units, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool beyond that alternative, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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 behavioral-disclosure burden. It adds useful context that prices come from GnoSwap and that omitting the token returns the whole feed, but it does not disclose freshness, caching, rate limits, or return 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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted wording. The source is stated first and the parameter behavior follows immediately.

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 simple one-parameter price lookup, the description is adequate for invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-value details such as price format, freshness, and whether all-token responses include metadata.

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 schema already documents the optional token parameter and its meaning. The description reinforces that passing a token returns one price while omitting it returns all, but it adds little 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?

The description clearly states the resource and source: token prices from GnoSwap. It also explains the single-token versus full-feed behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as gno_ohlcv or gno_swap_signals, 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?

It explains how to choose between one token and the whole feed, which gives implied invocation guidance. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of related tools like gno_ohlcv, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only graph query but does not disclose permissions, output shape, graph direction, depth effects, pagination, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no obvious filler. The phrasing is terse but efficient; slightly more clarity around parameter syntax would improve it, but it is appropriately sized.

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 graph-query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits depth semantics, return structure, and graph direction, so an agent cannot fully predict what the tool will return or how depth affects the result.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates partially by explaining scope values and the root parameter for ego mode. The depth parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a meaningful semantic gap.

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 states a specific resource and relationship: realms and packages import relationships. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as gno_realms, gno_libraries, or gno_get_package, but the import-graph purpose is clear.

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?

It gives explicit scope-level guidance: overview for the whole chain and ego with root for a single package neighbourhood. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of related package/realm tools, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful traits: results include activity counts, and paging is offset-based. But it is silent on ordering, what 'activity' measures, and whether realms and packages are mixed in one result set — meaningful gaps for a list tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the disambiguation pointer. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, an agent still lacks ordering information and any sense of the returned fields beyond 'activity counts'. For a simple two-parameter list tool this is close to adequate, but the burden falls entirely on the description and it stops short.

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 50%: offset is documented as 'next_offset from the previous page' while limit has no description at all. The description's 'offset-paged' reinforces the offset semantics but adds nothing about limit semantics or its 2000 ceiling, so it only partially compensates.

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 the resource (indexed realms and packages) and the payload attribute (activity counts), which is enough to distinguish it from aggregator siblings like gno_pools or gno_dex_analytics. It also explicitly excludes gno_get_package for single-package lookups. However, the verb is only implied ('Indexed ...') rather than stated as a list/enumerate action.

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?

Explicitly routes the single-package case to gno_get_package, and 'offset-paged' communicates the iteration model. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over related enumeration siblings (e.g. gno_libraries, gno_discoveries) or on ordering.

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. It usefully discloses the underlying ABCI query path and that the return is a rendered markdown page, implying a read-only operation. It says nothing about error behavior (nonexistent realm, path that does not implement Render) or whether the query is free/cached, which are material for an agent planning a call.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then supplies the transport and output format as compact clauses. Nothing is wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (a markdown page) and how the query is executed. The main gap is failure modes — what happens when the realm or render path does not exist — but the core call contract is covered.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the notion that path is appended to the realm path in the gno.land/r/…:path form; it gives no guidance on valid sub-path syntax or default behavior beyond the schema's 'default empty'.

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 (fetch) and resource (a realm's Render(path) output), then clarifies the result is the markdown page served at gno.land/r/…:path. That distinguishes it from generic evaluation siblings like gno_eval or gno_call, though it does not name them 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus gno_eval, gno_call, or gno_package_files — the closest siblings. The 'via ABCI vm/qrender' note describes the mechanism, not a selection criterion, so the agent must infer usage from the description 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses the search corpus. It does not state whether results are grouped by entity type, the ordering, or whether this is a read-only/side-effect-free operation (only implied). With zero annotation coverage this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the search scope is stated immediately. It is efficient, though there is very little content to be front-loaded given the tool's gaps.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a poorly documented limit parameter mean the description should explain result shape and paging behavior, but it does not. For a multi-entity federated search tool, an agent cannot predict what comes back.

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 only 50%: query is described in the schema, but limit is undocumented beyond its 1-100 bounds. The description's list of entity types clarifies what query searches across, but it never resolves whether limit caps results globally or per entity type, which is the one ambiguity that matters here.

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?

A clear specific verb (full-text search) plus an enumeration of the searchable resource types (realms, tokens, wallets, transactions, blocks). It distinguishes itself reasonably from single-resource siblings like gno_get_transactions or gno_token_metadata, though it never states how it compares to those targeted lookups.

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?

No guidance on when to use this broad search versus a targeted sibling such as gno_get_account or gno_token_registry. There is no mention of prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of what happens when the query matches nothing.

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 provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses only the ranking criterion and says nothing about timeframe, data freshness, sorting direction, or whether this is a read-only snapshot, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its extreme brevity is efficient, though it leaves important context unstated.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin for a ranking tool. It does not define 'realized PnL', the ranking window, default limit behavior, or what the returned wallet records include.

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 single parameter is 'limit' with schema constraints but 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the default, maximum, or what the limit counts (wallets), so it adds little to the bare 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 states a specific resource (wallets) and a ranking criterion (realized PnL), so an agent can understand the tool returns a ranked list. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like gno_wallet_pnl or gno_whales, leaving some ambiguity about when this list-oriented view is preferred.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gno_wallet_pnl or gno_whales. The description offers no conditions, exclusions, or recommended contexts for selecting this ranking view.

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 at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only reveals granularity ('coarse') and coverage ('whole indexed range'). It says nothing about the shape of the response, bucket resolution, whether the range or bucket size is configurable elsewhere, cost, or freshness/lag of the index.

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 a single short sentence with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is nothing front-loaded because there is essentially nothing said.

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?

This is a zero-parameter analytics tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the agent's only source of information about what comes back. It fails to state the returned metrics, the bucket granularity, or the time span actually covered, leaving an agent unable to predict the result at all.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter detail is needed or missing.

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 phrase 'Coarse activity buckets across the whole indexed range' names a resource shape and a scope, but never says what 'activity' is measured (calls, transactions, blocks, users) or supplies a real verb. It also does nothing to distinguish it from sibling analytics tools like gno_blocks, gno_dex_analytics, or gno_dev_activity, which plausibly overlap.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of what question it answers, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit cue is 'coarse', which hints at a high-level overview but never says so or names what to use for detail.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the output fields and that it queries an RPC endpoint, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't explain edge cases like multiple endpoints, failure behavior, or whether the data is cached. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core information. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly lists the returned fields, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what the tool returns and its scope. It might benefit from a note about latency or that it's a lightweight query, but it is largely complete for its complexity.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the empty schema fully covers the parameter space. No additional explanation is needed.

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 reports chain tip information: latest height, chain ID, block time, and the responding RPC endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like gno_get_block (specific block) or gno_get_transactions, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it's appropriate.

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 at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers only the fact that records reflect executed (not planned) swaps. It says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, whether a route is returned as grouped legs, retention windows, or authentication/cost constraints — all material for a no-annotation tool.

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 certainly short and the key qualifier ("leg by leg") is front-loaded, but the brevity tips into under-specification rather than economy. There is no filler, yet the single fragment leaves obvious questions unanswered.

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?

Four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description must explain both behavior and return shape; it does neither. An agent has no idea whether the response is a list of swaps, a list of legs per route, or aggregate counts, nor how limit/offset paginate.

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 only 50%: limit and first_leg are completely undocumented, and status/first_leg semantics (what "route status" values exist, what first_leg filters) are unexplained anywhere. The description contributes zero parameter information, so an agent cannot resolve what first_leg=true means or what unit limit applies to.

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?

"Multi-hop swaps leg by leg" conveys the resource — individual legs of multi-hop swap routes — and "as executed" hints these are settled on-chain swaps rather than quotes. But there is no verb (list? fetch? aggregate?) and no differentiation from near-siblings like gno_pool_trades, gno_dex_route, or gno_swap_signals, so an agent must guess which tool covers executed swap legs.

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 gives no when-to-use condition, no mention of alternatives such as gno_pool_trades for raw trades or gno_dex_route for quoting a route, and no prerequisites. The only implicit guidance is the phrase "as executed," which doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this tool over its siblings.

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 meaningful behavior: only settled (not pending) events, price impact included, cursor pagination with a deprecated offset, and two optional filters. It omits default page size, ordering, permissions/auth needs, and what the returned event record contains.

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, zero filler, with the subject of the tool front-loaded and pagination mechanics compressed into a single clause. Slightly clipped to the point of leaving key details unstated.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the returned fields and default page size for a 5-parameter event-listing tool. It covers the query mechanics adequately but leaves return-shape and limit behavior undocumented.

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 0% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate; it explains that pool and trader ('signing wallet') are filters and that cursor/offset control pagination with offset legacy. The limit parameter (max 200) is never mentioned and no identifier formats (pool address vs id, trader address form) are given.

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 the resource precisely ('Settled swap events with price impact'), which separates it from the write-side sibling gno_swap and from analytics like gno_wash_trades. It lacks an explicit verb ('list/query'), but 'settled' plus 'events' makes the read intent clear.

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 optional pool/signing-wallet filters imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over gno_swap, gno_wash_trades, or gno_pool_depth, and no stated prerequisites. Usage must be inferred.

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 present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the raw-units convention and the divide-by-10^decimals conversion, plus that the value is exact/on-chain rather than cached. It says nothing about error behavior for an unknown token key, rounding, or how a zero/absent balance is reported.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The core purpose and unit convention come first, and the disambiguation against the sibling lands immediately after.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.