402oracle

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: free tier is unsigned and rate-limited, paid endpoint returns signed attestation, and it lists all checks performed. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the use case and then detailing technical aspects. It contains no unnecessary words, though could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers functionality, output, limitations (free vs paid), and usage context comprehensively.

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 for the single parameter 'domain' is already clear ('Domain to verify, e.g. example.com'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verifies a business or domain, listing specific checks (RDAP, DNS, email posture, HTTPS) and outputs (attestation, trust score, evidence URLs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_claim, verify_freshness, and verify_price by focusing on business verification.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: before paying an invoice, onboarding a vendor, or trusting a business. It does not provide explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear and sufficient.

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 full burden. It discloses return values (verdict, confidence, citations, signed attestation), rate-limiting, and tier differences. It does not describe any destructive behavior, which is appropriate as it is a read-only operation.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, return value, tier differences, and usage context. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, return format, and usage context. It could mention if there are any additional constraints not in the schema, but it is largely 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'claim', and its description in the schema already states it is a factual claim. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema 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 the tool fact-checks a single factual claim, distinguishing it from siblings like verify_business, verify_freshness, and verify_price by focusing on factual claims.

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 indicates use before relying on a claim, and explains free vs paid tiers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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 provided, the description fully discloses behavior: returns HTTP status, Last-Modified/ETag, content SHA-256, change indication, and signed attestation. It also details free tier limitations (unsigned, rate-limited) and paid tier (cryptographic signature, $0.02 via x402), exceeding basic expectations.

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 sentences: purpose, return values, pricing/attestation. No wasted words, well-organized, and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, return fields, authentication, rate limits, and payment model. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that prior_hash is used to detect changes and that the tool returns whether content changed versus a prior hash, enhancing understanding 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 clearly states it checks if a URL is live and current, specifying the verb 'verify' and resource 'freshness'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (verify_business, verify_claim, verify_price) by focusing on URL freshness, making the purpose 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 description advises using this tool before acting on URL contents, providing clear context. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to siblings, the sibling names are distinct enough to infer different use cases.

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 present, but description fully discloses cross-checking three exchanges, median output, divergence flagging, signed attestation, free vs paid tiers with rate limit, and cryptographic signing 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?

Three concise sentences front-loading purpose, then method, then outcome. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, multi-exchange method, outputs (median, flag, attestation), and limitations (free vs paid). Missing exact return format, but without output schema this is acceptable.

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 has 100% coverage with description 'Ticker symbol, e.g. BTC, ETH, SOL'. Description adds no extra info beyond schema, so baseline 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?

Clearly states 'confirm a crypto asset price' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings (verify_business, verify_claim, verify_freshness) by describing multi-exchange cross-checking.

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 says 'before your agent trades, quotes, or settles' providing clear usage context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings are unrelated so no conflict.

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