news

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it discloses the important traits: the quote call itself is free, the report costs $49 via x402, delivery is a written 30-day coverage window, and separate agent/human purchase endpoints exist. What is missing is whether the quote has any latency, expiry, or rate limit.

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 'Free quote', and the pricing and channel details are packed into the second. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 stating the quote returns price and delivery, plus the payment mechanics and deliverable shape. Remaining gaps, such as quote validity or report format, are minor for a one-parameter 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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'subject'. The description restates the same scope ('brand, person or issue') without adding format guidance, examples, or constraints. Baseline 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?

The description states precisely what the tool returns: a free quote covering price and delivery for a written 30-day coverage report on a brand, person or issue. That said, the tool name 'indonesia_coverage_report' implies it produces the report itself, and only the description corrects this to a quote. It distinguishes itself from the preview/endpoints siblings by output (a priced report offer), but does not name 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?

The description gives channel routing ('Agents buy it at /report/buy via x402; humans use /order') and implies a quote-then-purchase flow, but never states when to call this versus indonesia_headlines_preview or indonesia_news_endpoints. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the free-tier limit of three headlines and the Google News ID edition, but it does not state authentication requirements, rate limits, return structure, or error 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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The free preview limitation is front-loaded and the paid alternative is clearly secondary.

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 preview tool, the description covers the core limitation and source edition. However, because there is no output schema, it should say more about what a returned headline contains, and it leaves authentication and error behavior unstated.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the single topic parameter is fully documented with an enum and default. The description only says 'for a topic' and adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: three latest Indonesian headlines for a topic on Google News ID. It clearly distinguishes the free preview from the paid full feed, though it does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling tools directly.

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 a clear usage contrast: this is the free preview returning three headlines, while full coverage requires the paid /headlines endpoint with 25 headlines. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling tools, but the free-vs-paid condition is a useful guide.

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 disclosure burden. It adds only that the call is free and that prices are "current" (i.e., dynamic), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, whether prices change per call, or what the response looks like for a discovery endpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence with the cost attribute stated first. It is tight, though "how an x402 client should call it" is slightly vague about what form those instructions take.

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 must convey return content; it does so at a high level (endpoints, prices, call format) but omits response shape and the x402 client's actual obligations. Adequate but thin for a catalog/discovery 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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments by describing a single unfiltered listing.

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: list every paid endpoint with its current USDC price plus call instructions. It is distinguishable from the sibling preview/report tools because it is explicitly an endpoint-and-price catalog, though it never names or contrasts those siblings directly.

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 "Free:" prefix implies this is a no-cost discovery call, so usage is inferable, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus indonesia_coverage_report or indonesia_headlines_preview, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral facts: free tier, hard cap of 3 items, and the shape of the payload (entities plus auditable sentiment). It omits rate limits, what happens when no newer articles exist, and whether a cursor is returned for chaining.

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 free-tier cap and resource, followed by the rationale. Nothing is padded or restated.

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?

A read tool with two fully-described optional parameters and no output schema; the description covers the return contents (articles, entities, sentiment) and the size cap, which is enough to call it correctly. Only edge behavior (empty result, cursor continuation) 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 coverage is 100%, so both `since` (ISO 8601) and `topic` (with enum and default) are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the cursor concept via 'newer than a cursor' and adds no format or default detail beyond the schema. 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+resource: returns up to 3 Indonesian articles newer than a cursor, each with entities and a sentiment score, and frames it as a free mirror of the paid GET /feed. An agent can tell what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like indonesia_headlines_preview, which also sound preview-like.

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?

'Shows exactly what the paid GET /feed returns so an agent can evaluate before paying' gives a clear use case: trial/evaluation before committing to the paid endpoint. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to the other preview/headlines siblings is given.

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 and does reasonably well: it discloses that only the top 5 entities are returned, that each gets a sentiment split and a single example headline, and that the full ranking/keyword trends sit behind a paid endpoint. This truncation disclosure is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to avoid misreading results. It does not state auth needs, rate limits, or refresh cadence for the free tier.

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 clauses, zero waste, front-loaded with the 'Free:' tier marker and the core value proposition before the paid upsell. Every clause carries distinct information (what is returned, how much of it, what is gated).

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, so the description must describe return values — and it does, naming the entity list, counts, sentiment split, and example headline. With one optional parameter and full enum coverage, little else is needed. A note on data freshness ('today' is asserted but never defined) would close the remaining gap.

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% — the single 'topic' param is a fully enumerated field with its default ('nasional') documented inline. The description adds nothing about topics beyond the scope word 'Indonesian headlines'. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('who and what today's Indonesian headlines are about') and enumerates the exact payload: top 5 entities, mention counts, a sentiment split, and an example headline per entity. That is far more concrete than the bare tool name. It stops short of distinguishing itself by name from siblings like indonesia_coverage_report or indonesia_headlines_preview, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 framing 'Free:' versus 'Paid GET /briefing adds the full ranking and keyword trends' implies a usage context (quick free scan versus full ranking), but it never states when to pick this over the sibling tools. There are no exclusions and no explicit alternative named. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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