SentEdge Idea Machine

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

With no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: full markdown delivery, delisting from sentedge.ai, no further sales, payment instructions returned, and that a losing racer is not charged. This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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?

Three concise sentences, each providing distinct value: action, consequences, and return behavior. Front-loaded with verb, no wasted 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?

For a simple purchase tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral traits, and return value. Adequately complete for an AI agent to invoke 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 has 100% coverage with parameter 'slug' described as 'Idea slug'. Description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameter, so 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'buy outright' with specific resource 'idea' for $1 USDC via x402, including actions: full markdown delivered, idea delisted, no further sales. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_full_idea, get_idea_teaser, and list_ideas which are read-only.

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?

Description implies use when intending to purchase exclusive rights to an idea, with 'first come, first served' and 'losing racer is never charged' providing context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, though siblings provide clear separation.

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?

The description explains that the tool returns payment instructions and requires settling with an x402 client, discloses the cost and non-exclusivity. No annotations are provided, so the description covers key behavioral aspects, though it omits error handling or response format details.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, cost/non-exclusivity, and return instructions. No redundant words, front-loaded with key action.

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 simple structure (1 required param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it costs, what it returns, and how to use the return. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly, though it could provide more detail on the markdown content.

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 only parameter is 'slug', described in schema as 'Idea slug'. The description does not elaborate further, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a 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 it retrieves the complete idea markdown, distinguishing it from siblings like get_idea_teaser and get_sample_full_idea by noting it is the full version and non-exclusive. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly says 'non-exclusive, the idea stays listed' which contrasts with buy_exclusive, and mentions the cost and payment instructions, guiding when to use this tool. However, it does not reference get_idea_teaser, so not exhaustive.

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 provided, but description implies a safe, read-only operation. Discloses what data is returned. Lacks mention of rate limits or authentication, but acceptable for a simple free tool.

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 concise sentences cover purpose, contents, and usage context. No redundant information. Front-loaded with key details.

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?

Despite no output schema, description lists returned fields comprehensively. Context signals are minimal, but the description covers what an agent needs to decide on using 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?

One parameter 'slug' with schema description. The tool description adds a concrete example ('e.g. 2026-07-08-circuit-compiler-...'), enhancing understanding 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?

Clearly states it provides a free teaser with specific fields: pitch, category, tags, score, sale status, and paid endpoints. Distinguishes from siblings like get_full_idea and buy_exclusive by noting it's a preview before 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?

Explicitly says 'Use before deciding to pull or buy,' indicating when to use. Does not explicitly mention alternatives, but siblings list provides context. Could be more detailed about when not to use.

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?

Without annotations, the description explains the output content: 'full unstripped council note with debate log, pain evidence...' It discloses that it delivers the same as a paid version. No side effects or permissions are noted, but for a read-only sample this is sufficient.

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. Every phrase adds value ('Free', 'one complete idea', 'exactly as a paid pull', list of content). Front-loaded with key benefit.

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 parameters or output schema, the description covers what the tool delivers. It could mention usage limits or frequency, but for a sample tool it adequately informs the 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?

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none to describe.

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 specific language: 'Free: one complete idea delivered exactly as a paid pull or buyout delivers it'. It clearly states the tool provides a full unstripped sample, distinguishing it from paid alternatives like get_full_idea.

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 explicitly guides use: 'Inspect the goods before spending a cent.' It implies use when evaluating ideas before purchase. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are listed, but the context with sibling tools like buy_exclusive clarifies the role.

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 full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as a guide (read-only, non-destructive). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are not critical for a guide. The description could be more explicit about the output format.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Key elements (free, complete guide, content areas) are front-loaded. Every word 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and content. It could specify the return format (e.g., text, structured guide), but overall it is sufficient for a guide 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?

No parameters exist, so the schema coverage is complete. The description does not need to add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 4 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 it is a guide for buying Idea Machine ideas, covering pricing, x402 flow, endpoints, and recommended clients. It distinctly positions itself as informational rather than an action, differentiating from sibling tools like buy_exclusive or get_full_idea.

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 use when the user needs guidance on payment, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The 'Free' tag and content list provide context, but explicit usage instructions are missing.

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 the full burden. It states the tool is 'free' and lists fields returned, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or safe. The nature of 'List' implies no side effects, but the description could be more explicit about behavioral traits.

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?

Very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 mentions the return fields (status, prices, x402 endpoints), which is helpful given no output schema. It could be improved by noting pagination or default behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for a list tool with well-described schema.

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 descriptions for both parameters (limit, status). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all Idea Machine ideas (free) and specifies the returned information (status, prices, x402 endpoints). The verb 'List' is precise, the resource is identified, and the scope is 'all', distinguishing it from sibling tools that get individual ideas.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied for listing, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to use for specific purposes. The description lacks usage context.

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