cross_chain_compare

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only provides pricing and API link but fails to mention what happens on error, rate limits, or the scope of data compared (e.g., which chains are supported).

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 short and includes pricing, but it is not well-structured for an agent. It mixes identity, pricing, and API link without clear prioritization. Could be more concise while adding essential info.

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 complexity of cross-chain comparison and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, supported chains, or how the comparison is performed, which is critical for agent use.

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% as both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no further semantic value to the parameters; it only repeats the API endpoint. 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 includes '跨链数据对比' (cross-chain data comparison), which gives a general idea, but it doesn't specify what data is compared (e.g., balances, tokens, transactions). The name and context imply the purpose, but the description lacks explicit clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like address_balance, address_risk, or token_insight. There is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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