Voidpay Marketplace (hosted)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a pre-flight re-check of the publication with a hard failure if it changed, and the explicit boundary that the tool 'never pays or signs'. It stops short of describing link lifetime or any auth/permission requirements.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the constraints trailing. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the failure mode is disclosed. However, with three undocumented required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no hint of where projectionId or the digest originate, the definition leaves a real gap for an agent trying to call it 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 0% for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only publicationDigest is indirectly illuminated by 're-checks the exact publication'; slug and projectionId (including where projectionId comes from) are never explained in either the schema or the description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return an owner-browser checkout link') plus scope ('for one service in a published storefront'), which is far more than the title alone. It does not explicitly route against siblings (voidpay_services/status/storefront), but those cover entirely different domains, so confusion risk is low.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it to obtain a checkout link, and the sentence 'the server re-checks the exact publication first and fails if it changed' hints that the publication digest must be current. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: page size cap, cursor pagination, the fact that listings may be invited-only, that price/slug/purchase permission are absent, and that provider text is untrusted. These are genuine behavioral caveats beyond structured data, though nothing is said about error or empty-result behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before pagination and caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the 'nextCursor' naming versus the schema's 'cursor' parameter is a small source of ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers pagination and listing caveats well. However, for a tool with a nested query object and four undocumented parameters, the description leaves the input contract largely unexplained.

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 0% across 4 parameters, including a nested query object (after, limit, definitionDigest), and the description only alludes to limit and cursor implicitly via 'nextCursor.' It never explains the query object, definitionDigest, or how search differs from query, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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: 'Find public Voidpay service descriptions,' which clearly distinguishes it as a read/browse listing tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with siblings like voidpay_storefront, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the pagination mechanics ('Each call returns one page... a returned nextCursor value selects the next page'), which tells the agent how to iterate listings, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus voidpay_storefront or the other siblings, nor any exclusions.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying this is a static capability/setup description rather than a live qualification check, which is not derivable from annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the scope exclusion. Every clause earns its place 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs to select it correctly, though it could name the sibling to use for live checks.

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; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false is consistent with the description's no-argument framing.

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 ('Describe') and resource ('connector capabilities and setup'), which is distinct from the sibling tools that deal with checkout links, services, and storefronts. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the negative clause ('not a live payment or chain qualification check') sharpens the scope.

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 clause 'This is not a live payment or chain qualification check' gives a clear when-not-to-use signal, steering agents away from expecting transactional data. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for live checks, but the exclusion is explicit.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by warning that seller descriptions in the result are untrusted provider text, a prompt-injection caveat not captured by any structured field.

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 padding. The core action is front-loaded and the security caveat follows 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. For a read-only, single-parameter tool, the description covers identification and the untrusted-content risk; it is only missing route-selection guidance relative to siblings.

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 0% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'By slug' clarifies that the parameter identifies a specific published storefront, but gives no format or resolution detail, leaving the parameter only partially explained.

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 states a specific verb pair ('read and validate') and resource ('published marketplace by slug'), which is more precise than the bare title. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like voidpay_services or voidpay_status, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (checkout_link, services, status), nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb and the 'published' qualifier.

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