Avasis Agent Platform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It still adds real value beyond them: output is compa cted with the full JSON available via full_url, the call is never billed, and it explicitly warns that third-party text inside (token names, market questions) is data, not instructions — a prompt-injection guard. It does not mention rate limits or payload size limits, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its value proposition, then the enum glosses, then output-shape and safety notes. 'Free, never charged' is somewhat redundant with 'free sample' in the first clause, a minor repetition in an otherwise dense, well-ordered block.

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, but the description compensates by explaining that the response is compacted and that full_url carries the full JSON, so the agent knows what it will receive. With a single enum parameter fully documented and safety covered by annotations, the only remaining gap is any hint of sample size or selection-bias limits (i.e., it is a sample, not the full kit).

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% and the enum is already constrained, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by glossing each enum member ('sol-kit (Solana rug check complete kit)', 'gens-ops' EVM gas ops kit, etc.), which tells the agent what payload each sample actually contains — meaningfully beyond the schema's bare 'which sample'.

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 plus resource: 'return a real, free sample of a paid product', with all four sample kinds enumerated and glossed inline (sol-kit, pm-kit, sol-verdict, gas-ops). An agent can tell it is a preview/sample endpoint rather than a listing or pricing endpoint. It never names the siblings (avasis_products, avasis_quote, avasis_verdict_rubric), so differentiation is only 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?

'so you can see the exact keys before paying' implies this is the pre-purchase inspection step, and 'Free, never charged' removes cost concerns. But there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over avasis_products or avasis_verdict_rubric, and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance. Usage must be inferred from the sample/before-paying framing rather than being 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the call is free and that the payload includes live prices, URL templates and a free sample (there is no output schema to convey this). Minor gap: no mention of pricing-refresh cadence or auth requirements on the host.

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 descriptive sentence followed by a two-clause usage directive; the enumeration is dense but each item adds routing information. Front-loaded with the resource being listed 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?

A no-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema needs a description that says what comes back, and this one does (price, URL template, free sample). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything required to call it correctly and act on 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, host-wide listing.

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 ('List every paid API route on this Avasis host') and then enumerates the concrete route families covered (token safety verdicts, rug-check kits, Polymarket odds, page reader, chain tips, gas ops). It also names what each entry carries (price in USDC, URL template, free sample), so an agent knows exactly what this returns 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?

'Free. Call it first, then avasis_quote for the route you want.' gives an explicit ordering rule and the next step, which is strong guidance. It does not say when to prefer avasis_free_sample or avasis_verdict_rubric instead, so sibling routing is only partially covered.

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?

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds a meaningful trust and cost statement — the server never holds or spends funds, and the call itself is free, unlike the route it describes. It doesn't mention rate limits or error modes, keeping it below 5.

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 returned fields grouped in a parenthetical and the trust caveat following immediately. Dense but no filler; slightly long for one sentence.

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, and the description does enumerate what comes back (price, accepts[] fields, pay URL, free sample, ladder), so an agent can act on the response. It omits the shape of accepts[] entries' nesting and any error behavior, which leaves a small 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 fully documented in the schema, including the omit-to-get-template behavior. The description only adds the fact that inputs are substituted into the pay URL, which is marginal 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+resource: returns x402 payment requirements for a paid Avasis route, and enumerates the payload (price, accepts[], pay URL, free sample, also_available ladder). This is clearly distinct from avasis_products (catalog) and avasis_free_sample (free 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?

Explains the intended flow — your own wallet pays the HTTP route using this payload — and the schema ties the product key back to avasis_products. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives are given beyond that, so it stops short of 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?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the rules are 'published' and 'deterministic' (stable output, safe to cache and cite), and 'Free' signals no credit consumption — a practical cost signal not present in annotations. It stops short of describing the response format or size.

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 filler. The content inventory is front-loaded, followed by the single actionable instruction and the cost note, so an agent gets the essentials 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so via the flag codes / severities / weights / thresholds inventory. What remains unstated is the return format and rough size, a minor gap for a static reference document.

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; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no input is required by presenting it as a fixed published document.

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: the deterministic SAFE/WARN/DANGER verdict rubric, and enumerates its contents (flag codes, severities, weights, grade thresholds). This is clearly a document-retrieval tool and is distinguishable from the sibling tools (free sample, products, quote) by its subject matter, though no sibling is named 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?

"Cite it when explaining a verdict" gives one concrete usage context, which is more than nothing. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not contrast the tool against avasis_quote or avasis_free_sample, so an agent must infer that this is the reference lookup rather than a quoting or sampling call.

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