Bankrolled.ai Agent Hub

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed (openWorldHint=false) surface, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context — that the call is unbilled ('billed:false', 'No payment required') — which is exactly the trait an agent needs before deciding to probe the service.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and the ordering instruction, with zero filler or repetition.

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 correctly compensates by naming the key return fields (ok, service, version, billed:false). For a trivial no-arg liveness probe, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is fully empty and consistent. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('Check Agent Hub liveness') rather than a tautology, and immediately distinguishes itself from the paid siblings by marking itself free with no payment required.

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 explicit sequencing guidance ('Call first before paid tools') that tells the agent when to reach for this versus the paid siblings. It implies but never names the specific alternatives (money_fact, pricing_list, scheme_lookup), so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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 readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations already covering safety, the description adds substantial new behavior: the $0.01 USDC-on-Base payment model, HTTP 402 on unpaid requests, and the no-hallucination guarantee on unknown queries. These are exactly the traits annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying new information (function, examples, price/status behavior, failure mode). No filler, well front-loaded.

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 covers when to call it, how to pay, what happens on failure, and the trust guarantee. No output schema exists, yet the agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret outcomes.

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 baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds value by showing the kind of queries expected and reinforcing the short-query nature of q.

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 ('Fetch one verified money fact') with the distinguishing traits (official source, as-of date). It clearly differs from siblings like health_check, pricing_list, and scheme_lookup.

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 concrete example queries and tells the agent what happens on unknown input (not_in_catalog). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the payment and failure semantics make the intended use clear.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not open-world), and the description adds real behavioral context: what the response contains (structured catalog with per-tool prices), that this tool is never paywalled, and the HTTP 402 failure mode for unpaid paid tools. Return-format specifics are partly left to the catalog listing itself.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with purpose and then packs in prices, free status, gating behavior, and a docs link. Information-dense but well ordered; the inline price list is slightly cramped yet 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely meets it — it describes the catalog contents, per-tool pricing, gating behavior, and points to docs for detail. A little more on the response envelope would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no input 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (Agent Hub tools) and explicit scope: prices, example arguments, payment notes. It clearly frames itself as the catalog versus the individual sibling tools (health_check, money_fact, scheme_lookup), which it enumerates.

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?

Establishes clear context — this is the pricing/discovery endpoint, free and never x402-gated, while 'unpaid paid tools → HTTP 402' tells the agent how the other tools behave. It does not give an explicit 'use this instead of X when...' rule, but the catalog role is unambiguous.

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 readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: the $0.02 USDC-on-Base x402 price and the HTTP 402 failure mode for unpaid calls. That payment/auth behavior is not derivable from the annotations. It stops short of describing the returned payload or any rate limits.

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 core purpose, then input guidance, an example, and the payment terms in tight, telegraphic sentences. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to invoke the tool.

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, yet the description never sketches the return shape (scheme name, coverage limits, etc.), which is the main remaining gap. For a simple two-parameter lookup with payment semantics fully covered, it is otherwise complete enough 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already lists the allowed country values, the topic default, and examples, so the description's 'US, UK, CA, AU, NZ' and default-topic restatement add little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter 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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (deposit-insurance or related scheme) plus a clear scope constraint (English-speaking countries). The sibling tools (health_check, money_fact, pricing_list) are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed and none is missing.

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 tells the agent what to pass (country ISO, optional topic) and what the default topic is, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by the lookup framing rather than stated.

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