LEGIT

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the return contents (score, grade, uptime, latency, explanation) and accepted input types. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., read-only nature, network calls, rate limits) or handling of invalid inputs. The transparency is adequate for a simple read operation but not fully comprehensive.

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 that front-loads the essential purpose ('Trust report for one merchant') and enumerates the outputs in a readable list. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and what inputs it accepts. It could be more complete by clarifying the meaning of the score or how to interpret the explanation, but these are not essential for invoking the tool correctly. The sibling context is not explicitly incorporated, but the description stands on its own.

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 description reiterates the parameter's accepted values ('Algorand, EVM or Solana addresses, or an https URL') which matches the schema description exactly. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 the tool's function: generating a trust report for a single merchant, including specific output components (0-100 score, letter grade, uptime, median latency, explanation). It also specifies accepted input formats (Algorand, EVM, Solana addresses, or https URL), distinguishing it from siblings like compare_merchants (comparison) and leaderboard (ranking).

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 usage for checking a single merchant's trust report but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There are no alternative names or exclusion criteria provided. The context is clear enough for a basic scenario, but explicit guidance is 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return value (winner address and rationale) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the input range and output format. No filler or redundant repetition.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and output. It fully explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for this simple comparison 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 already describes the single parameter 'addresses' with the same 2-5 range and purpose, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'head-to-head trust comparison' adds some semantic color but does not provide meaningful syntax or formatting details 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?

The description specifies a clear action ('Head-to-head trust comparison') with a clear resource ('2-5 merchant addresses') and distinct output ('winner address and a one-sentence rationale'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_trust (single address) and leaderboard (ranking).

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 the tool is for comparing 2-5 merchants head-to-head, which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions output format (URL and HTML snippet) but does not state side effects, authorization needs, or error handling. For a tool named 'get', read-only is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 output (SVG URL) and then the secondary output (HTML snippet). 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers both the input and the return values. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. A brief note on error handling would improve completeness, but it is not critical here.

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 fully describes the 'address' parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 the tool's function: returning an embeddable SVG badge URL and HTML snippet for a merchant. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_trust or leaderboard, which serve different purposes.

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 intended use is implied ('for the merchant's site'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like check_trust, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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 transparency burden. It conveys the main behavior (top merchants by trust score, optional network filter) but does not disclose ordering direction explicitly (though 'top' implies descending trust score), read-only nature, or behavior for invalid networks. For a simple read-only list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence with examples. No wasted words, and the key information is 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?

The tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for invocation but does not describe the return format or edge-case behavior. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a major omission, but it could be improved by stating what the response contains.

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 already describes both parameters (limit and network), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete network examples (base-mainnet, algorand-mainnet, solana-mainnet) and clarifying that network is optional, making parameter usage more actionable.

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 the tool returns top merchants ranked by trust score, optionally filtered by network. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_trust (individual checks), compare_merchants (comparison), and get_badge_url (badge URL generation).

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 usage for viewing a leaderboard and provides network filter examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. Given the sibling tools have distinct purposes, the use case is inferred rather than explicit.

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