get_intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the pay-per-use nature (0.001 USDC, specific address), the behavior on missing/invalid txHash (returns 402 instructions), and optional parameters. It is transparent about the payment requirement and error handling, though it omits details like rate limits or authentication beyond payment.

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 well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then covers payment details, error behavior, and parameter usage. It is efficient without being terse.

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 has 4 parameters (all fully documented) and no output schema, the description explains the overall flow, payment mechanism, and parameter effects thoroughly. It leaves little ambiguity about how to use the 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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the txHash's role as payment proof, the purpose of focus (narrow to domain), and horizon default. This goes beyond the schema 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?

The description clearly states it returns a macro intelligence briefing from the DPX Stability Oracle, listing specific domains (FX, climate, commodities, geopolitical risk, yield). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_esg_score or get_oracle_status, which focus on narrower or different data.

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 explains that a valid txHash is required to unlock the response, and if omitted or invalid, it returns payment instructions (402) with the exact amount and address. It also suggests using focus and horizon to narrow the briefing, providing clear guidance on parameter usage.

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