402oracle

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 transparently discloses outputs (signed attestation, 0-100 trust score, evidence URLs), behavior (flags newly registered or thin-infrastructure domains), limitations (free tier unsigned and rate-limited), and payment requirements (x402 header, USDC). This is comprehensive and goes beyond what an agent could infer from the schema.

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, methods, output, bulk/payment alternatives, and transport options are all covered without redundancy. It is front-loaded with a clear question ('Is this company real?') and flows logically from purpose to invocation details.

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 no output schema and only a single parameter, the description provides all essential context for correct invocation: what the tool does, what it returns, how to access paid features, and rate-limit caveats. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 only parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It does not need to compensate because the schema is sufficient.

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: 'Verify a company or domain is legitimate and established'. It explicitly details the verification mechanisms (RDAP, DNS, email posture, HTTPS) and output (signed attestation, trust score, evidence URLs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_claim, verify_freshness, and verify_price, which target 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 description gives explicit use-case scenarios: 'before your agent pays an invoice, onboards a vendor, or trusts it', and mentions bulk endpoint and payment options for signed attestations. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's rate-limiting on the free tier, the optional payment for no daily limit, and the signed vs. unsigned attestation behavior. This is more than typical, though it doesn't detail what happens on invalid input or network failures, but the essential behavior is well covered.

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 paragraph that is information-dense but not bloated. It front-loads the core purpose and then expands on features and payment options. The length is justified by the complexity of the signing and payment details, and every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 a single parameter, complete schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thorough. It covers the tool's function, outputs, signing mechanism, rate limits, and payment alternatives. It misses only minor details like error handling or response format specifics, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent 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?

The schema covers the claim parameter with a character length constraint, but the description adds important context: it clarifies that the claim must be factual and single, and it explains the significance of the claim in the fact-checking process. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is expected, but the description elevates it by hinting at the claim's role in the verdict.

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 purpose: fact-checking a claim against live web evidence, with specific outputs (verdict, confidence, citations) and a signing mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on general claims rather than business, freshness, or price 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 explains when to use the tool (before relying on a claim, for misinformation review, as a hallucination guard) and provides guidance on alternatives (free vs. paid tiers, different transport methods). It also mentions alternatives like POST /verify/claim, ensuring the agent knows the options.

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 full disclosure burden. It enumerates returned data (HTTP status, Last-Modified/ETag, SHA-256 fingerprint, changed flag), explains unsigned/rate-limited free tier versus paid signed attestation, and details payment headers/transport options. This is strong behavioral transparency for a read-only verification call.

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 purposeful, front-loading the tool's purpose before payment/auth details. The pricing and header information is somewhat lengthy, but every sentence conveys necessary operational information, so it earns a 4 rather than a lower score.

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 itemizing return values and the signed/unsigned distinction. It also covers rate limits, payment header variants, pricing, and cross-transport equivalence. The only minor omission is a numeric rate limit, but the overall guidance is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%: url and prior_hash each have descriptions in the schema. The description adds context by explaining that prior_hash enables change detection, but it does not materially extend the schema semantics, so 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?

The description opens with a concrete question, 'Is this URL live, and has this page changed?', then states a specific check: uptime, content fingerprint, and change detection. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling verify_business/verify_claim/verify_price tools, which are domain-specific verifications.

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?

It gives explicit usage contexts: 'before your agent acts on its contents, to detect stale data, or to decide whether to invalidate a cache.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the domain of freshness is apparent and the context is clear.

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 so thoroughly. It discloses cross-checking across five venues, median calculation, the two-source minimum, divergence flagging, signed vs unsigned attestations, rate limiting, and payment-header 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 long but information-dense and mostly front-loaded with purpose and behavior. Some phrases are slightly redundant ('Is this price correct?' plus the following confirm statement, and 'Same price on either transport'), but the length is justified by the payment and transport details.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers use case, accepted symbols, source behavior, failure thresholds, rate limits, and payment upgrades. It does not describe the exact attestation response shape or error behavior when fewer than two sources are live, but this does not prevent correct invocation.

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 schema already describes 'symbol' with examples. The description adds that USD/USDT-quoted symbols are accepted, which is helpful, but it does not clarify the exact format for quoted symbols or how they differ from bare tickers like BTC.

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 opens with a direct question and then states the precise function: 'Confirm a crypto asset's spot price before your agent trades, quotes, or settles on it.' It names the resource (spot price) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like verify_business and verify_claim by focusing on price 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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool ('before your agent trades, quotes, or settles') and explains the payment/transport options. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative verify_* tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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