ToolVet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the tool is free, the response is limited to a handful of basic fields, and richer history/security data lives elsewhere.

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. The scope statement comes first and the alternative-tool routing follows, front-loading the information that drives tool selection.

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, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (kind, URL, price, trust score, live status) carries the return-value burden effectively. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter's description ('Service id (slug)') already documents format. The description's 'by id' adds only marginal meaning, so baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Basic facts about one listing by id') and enumerates exactly what comes back: kind, URL, price, trust score, live status. It is immediately distinguishable from get_service_report, which it names, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent: use get_service_report for history and security findings, implying this tool is for quick lookups. It does not address the other closely related sibling, get_service_status, even though the description claims to return 'live status' - a potential ambiguity left unresolved.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add what they don't. Disclosing 'Costs $0.002 via x402' is genuinely valuable, non-obvious context an agent needs before calling, and the enumerated report scope clarifies the operation's depth. No auth or rate-limit details, but for a read-only report that is a minor gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: scope first, input source second, cost last. Every sentence carries information the agent needs and none repeats structured fields verbatim.

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 output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating what the report returns (uptime, latency, price history, security findings), and the cost line covers a decision-critical factor. Only the routing question against sibling report/status tools is left unaddressed.

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 a single parameter already documented as 'Service id (slug) from search results', so the baseline is 3. The description restates that source and adds a small extension ('or recommend results'), but provides no format or validation detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full vetting report for one service') and enumerates the report contents (uptime, latency, price history, security findings), which separates it from the narrower get_service and get_service_status. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Takes an id from search or recommend results' tells the agent where the required argument comes from, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over get_service, get_service_status, or preflight_check, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the id source.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call is free, data comes from ToolVet's own checks (source of truth), and staleness is disclosed via the 'unknown when not checked yet' state. It stops short of stating caching or refresh cadence.

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 answer is front-loaded: 'Free' and the framing question come first, followed by the fields returned. It is a single dense sentence with no wasted preamble, though the enumerated uptime windows make the tail slightly list-like rather than tightly structured.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so well by enumerating state, timestamps, uptime windows, and outages. For a one-parameter, read-only tool it is essentially complete; minor gaps like refresh cadence or error behavior when the id is unknown are unaddressed.

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% — the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'Service id (slug)'. The description only weakly reinforces this by saying 'a listed service', implying the id must be one that exists in the listing, but adds no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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 precise verb+resource — retrieving the current status of a listed service from ToolVet's own checks — and enumerates what 'status' concretely means (state, since when, latest check, uptime over 24h/7d/30d, recent outages). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_service or get_service_report even without naming them, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 by the framing question 'Is a listed service up right now?' and by 'Free', which signals a low-cost call worth making before heavier operations like preflight_check or get_service_report. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no stated alternative for deeper reporting, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds two genuine pieces of context beyond that: it is free to call, and it returns per-category service counts. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering.

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 fragments with zero filler, and the cost signal ("Free.") is front-loaded for an agent deciding whether to call it. Nothing is padded, though the fragment style trades some clarity for brevity.

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, read-only list tool this is close to adequate, and the return content is described since no output schema exists. However, it does not clarify the result structure (list vs. map) or whether empty categories are included, leaving minor gaps.

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 the description carries no parameter burden and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made or contradicted.

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 names the resource (categories in the directory) and what each entry carries (service counts), which is specific enough for an agent to know what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_services, but the resource and return content are unambiguous.

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 only usage signal is the leading "Free." marker, which implies no cost barrier to calling it, but the description never says when to use this over search_services or any alternative. No exclusions or preconditions are 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?

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavior well beyond that: it makes a live outbound request to the target, that request is unpaid, it cross-checks against stored records, it returns a verdict from an enumerated set (ok, caution, avoid), and — critically for a paid tool — it explicitly states the $0.005 cost via x402. That is exactly the extra context an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: purpose and checks first, then mechanism and return verdict, then cost. The most decision-relevant facts (what it checks, that it is a live unpaid probe, and the price) are all 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?

There is no output schema, and the description does step in by naming the verdict values, plus it covers the cost and network side effect. It stops short of describing what a caution/avoid verdict carries or how failures (e.g. unreachable URL) surface, leaving a small gap for a tool whose whole output is a judgment.

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 both parameters (url, method) are already documented in the schema, including the method enum and its default logic, so the description is not required to compensate. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (live-check) and resource (an x402 URL) and enumerates exactly what it verifies: valid challenge, real price, token, and pay-to match. The 'sends one unpaid request' framing clearly sets it apart from the listing-reading siblings like get_service_status or get_service_report, so an agent can tell what this does without opening either schema.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'before paying,' i.e. as a pre-payment verification step. It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not condition, so it stops short of the 5-level routing guidance, but the timing cue 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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious monetization trait ('Costs $0.01 via x402'), which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of saying whether the payment is charged on failure or how the x402 flow is initiated, so it is useful but not complete.

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 tight sentences plus a cost clause; scope, alternative, and price are all front-loaded with no filler. Every clause carries information the 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return contents (top 3 services, reasons, call instructions) and states cost. It omits rank/confidence semantics and result cardinality edge cases, but an agent has enough 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 100% and the enum for 'kind' is documented in-schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail for task/network/max_price_usd beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get the best 3 live, trustworthy services for a task') plus the return payload ('reasons and call instructions'), and explicitly contrasts itself with search_services. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

'Use it when you have one concrete task; use search_services to compare more options' gives both the selection condition and the named alternative. Nothing is left to inference about when to pick this tool.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no tool is invoked during the scan, definitions are only read up to a size limit, truncation is reported, results come back as a letter grade plus findings, and access is throttled per IP. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 dense but front-loaded with the value proposition and the core action, then closes with two short constraints. The phrase 'and more' is mildly vague and the middle sentence runs long, but no sentence is filler.

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 output schema, the description still explains the return value (grade A to F with findings), discloses the truncation case, and covers cost and rate constraints. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret 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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the URL and its format. The description implies the target is a remote MCP server but adds no syntax, host constraints, or failure semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (scan a remote MCP server) and enumerates the concrete work performed: connecting via Streamable HTTP, reading tool definitions and instructions, and checking for tool poisoning classes such as hidden instructions, invisible characters, and credential-file requests. This is clearly distinct from the sibling service-directory tools (get_service, list_categories, search_services).

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 gives implicit usage context: it is free, it is non-invasive ('without calling any tool'), and it is rate limited 'per IP'. However, it never states when an agent should choose this over a sibling such as preflight_check, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description adds pricing ($0.003 via x402), a concrete rate limit (10 free searches per IP per day), and the fact that sponsored listings arrive in a separate list. Those are exactly the operational details an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then results shape, then the alternative tool, then cost/quota. No redundancy with the title or schema.

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, and the description compensates by describing the return shape: listings ranked by relevance, trust score and usage, each carrying price, live status and invocation info, with sponsored results split out. Combined with the quota and cost notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each of the 5 parameters (kind, limit, query, network, max_price_usd) is already documented in the schema, including the enum meaning. The description only alludes to price and status filtering, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (vetted, live-monitored x402 APIs and MCP servers), and immediately contrasts itself with recommend_service for single picks. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_service or list_categories without opening a schema.

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 routes to recommend_service when the agent wants one pick for a task, and discloses the per-IP free quota and per-call cost, which tells the agent when calling is cheap. It stops short of stating when-not to search at all (e.g. if the agent already knows the service id), so it is not a full 5.

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