Pyrimid Protocol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are sorted by relevance and trust (ERC-8004 verified first), but lacks details on rate limits, mutation (none expected), or response structure beyond sorting.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Search', no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 is provided, so the description should compensate. It mentions returns products and sorting, but omits details like pagination, fields returned, or total results count. Adequate but not 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%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The only addition is the sorting behavior, which is minor.

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 searches the Pyrimid product catalog and returns matching products, which differentiates it from sibling tools like pyrimid_buy (purchase) or pyrimid_categories (browse categories).

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 implies usage for searching products but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pyrimid_categories. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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 discloses the payment mechanism (USDC on Base) and that it returns product data, indicating a side effect and output. However, it does not mention failure modes, reversibility, or potential costs beyond the description.

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 very concise with two sentences (30-40 words). Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second specifies payment and return. No fluff.

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 financial transaction tool, the description is somewhat sparse. It lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or return format. No output schema is provided, so the description should at least hint at the structure of returned 'product data', which it does not.

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 descriptions in the schema already state 'Vendor ID from browse results' and 'Product ID from browse results'. The tool description merely echoes this, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Purchase a product'), the resource ('from the Pyrimid network'), and specific details like payment method ('Pays via x402 / USDC on Base'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like pyrimid_browse and pyrimid_preview.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to purchase a product) and mentions that inputs come from browse results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, although siblings are available.

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 clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation (no destructive hint), and mentions 'product counts' adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose if categories are top-level only or if there is any limit on count.

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 is to the point, no extraneous words. Every word adds value, achieving high 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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core function (listing categories with counts) but omits details like whether categories are hierarchical or if pagination applies. Slightly more context would improve completeness for an agent.

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?

Since there are zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per instructions. The schema already covers 100% of parameters (none), so the description correctly adds no extra parameter info.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'product categories' with the detail 'with product counts', making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from siblings like pyrimid_browse (browsing products) and pyrimid_buy (purchasing).

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 implies usage for retrieving categories, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. It provides no exclusions or context, so the agent must infer based on tool names.

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 provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly labels the operation as a 'check' (read-only), but lacks details on authentication requirements, error handling for invalid IDs, or any side effects. The transparency is adequate for a simple check but not rich.

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 sentence with no fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail, earning 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?

Given low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but could be more complete by clarifying what 'performance' entails or what the output format is. It lacks depth about return values or error states, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'affiliate_id', clarifying it accepts bytes16 hex or wallet address. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the tool checks 'earnings and performance', which does not enhance parameter understanding. 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('affiliate commission earnings and performance'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'pyrimid_register_affiliate' (registration) and 'pyrimid_buy' (purchasing) by focusing on a read operation for commissions.

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 implies usage when needing affiliate earnings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor any prerequisites (e.g., affiliate must be registered). Alternatives like 'pyrimid_register_affiliate' are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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 full burden. It adequately indicates a safe, read-only preview operation. However, it could further detail any required permissions, response behavior, or side effects. The current description is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key differentiator ('without buying'), and every word earns its place. No extraneous 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?

Given low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and output. It could be slightly improved by indicating the response format (e.g., 'returns a breakdown of shares'). But overall, it is adequate.

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% with two parameters (vendor_id, product_id) already described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only implying these are identifiers for the product whose split is previewed. 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 clearly states the verb 'Preview' and the specific resource 'payment split for a product', distinguishing it from siblings like pyrimid_buy (which actually purchases) and pyrimid_commission_check (which might be for commission checks). The mention of 'without buying' further clarifies its use case.

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 implies usage before purchase ('without buying'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like pyrimid_commission_check or pyrimid_browse, leaving room for more guidance.

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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool is 'free, permissionless,' indicating no cost or permissions needed. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state), return format, or dependencies. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 extremely concise (8 words) with no unnecessary information. It front-loads the main action and follows with key traits. Every sentence adds value. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the tool's purpose and its free/permissionless nature, but does not describe what the instructions contain (e.g., step-by-step guide, prerequisites). For a simple informational tool, it is sufficient but lacks 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional information about them, staying at the baseline. Referrer_id is noted as optional in schema, and wallet_address is required. No extra context 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's purpose: 'Get instructions to register as a Pyrimid affiliate agent.' The verb 'get instructions' is specific and the resource 'register as affiliate' is well-defined. The tool is distinct from siblings like pyrimid_buy or pyrimid_commission_check.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is for new affiliates by noting 'free, permissionless,' but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given. There is no mention of alternative tools 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, error handling, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence with a dash separating the main action from the list of metrics. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous 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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return structure. It lists the types of stats but not their format (e.g., object keys). For a simple tool, this is adequate but could be more 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the vendor_id parameter beyond what the schema provides (hex string). It lists output fields but not parameter details.

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 gets vendor performance stats and lists specific metrics (total volume, sales count, products listed, affiliate payouts). The name and description distinguish it from siblings like pyrimid_commission_check.

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 tells what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No mention of use cases or exclusions, though the purpose is clear enough for a straightforward stats retrieval.

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