mizan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is free, that ratings are 'based on what Mizan measured' (so they are empirical, not speculative), and enumerates the possible return values. This is meaningful behavioral information beyond a mere 'check' label.

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, no filler. The first sentence contains the core purpose, output values, and data source; the second gives the temporal use case. 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists the possible return values ('avoid / caution / ok / unrated'), so an agent knows what to expect. It lacks discussion of error cases or edge conditions, but for a simple rating tool this is sufficient and complete enough for an agent to call and use 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both 'url' and 'host', so the schema already explains the parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mapping 'endpoint' to 'url' and 'operator' to 'host' – which is already implied by the schema descriptions. 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 states a specific action ('Returns avoid / caution / ok / unrated') for a clear resource ('an x402 endpoint or operator') and even describes the basis ('what Mizan measured... with its own money'). It clearly distinguishes this as a rating/check tool from siblings like mizan_coverage or mizan_report without needing to inspect them.

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 an explicit use case instruction: 'Call this before any x402 payment.' This tells an agent exactly when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the timing instruction is strong and 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that the tool is 'Free' and lists the data points it exposes, which strongly implies a read-only informational operation. However, it does not explicitly state absence of side effects, data freshness semantics, or any access 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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The 'Free' qualifier is front-loaded, and the remainder is a compact list of concrete metrics, making it easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it states cost, enumerates the reported metrics, and gives the temporal detail about the last survey. An agent can confidently invoke this tool without further context.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context about what the parameterless call returns, which fully removes invocation ambiguity.

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 identifies what the tool reports: counts of endpoints on file, bought endpoints, charge-without-delivery behavior, and last survey date. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' but the resource and output metrics are specific enough. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, though the 'coverage' name and title help.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus mizan_check or mizan_report. The description implies it is a summary/coverage status tool, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives.

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 helpfully discloses that the tool itself costs nothing and that it only explains rather than executes a purchase. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as required permissions, output format, or failure behaviors.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds one valuable behavioral note about cost. Every clause earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 one-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what input is expected, and an important financial nuance. It is missing only explicit sibling differentiation to be fully 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%, with the sole parameter 'host' described as 'Operator hostname.' The description adds merely the context that this host corresponds to 'a given operator,' which is marginal beyond what the schema already 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 a specific verb and resource: it explains the evidence behind a verdict for a given operator and how to buy the report over x402. It is not a tautology and gives a concrete sense of the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from mizan_check or mizan_coverage.

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 this tool is for understanding report contents and purchase instructions, but it offers no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over mizan_check or mizan_coverage. It also does not state any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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