TechCrunch AI News — buy per-query in-session (techcrunchai)

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: no API key is required, the tool exposes the full tool surface rather than just always-on tools, and every listed tool is callable via tools/call by name. This goes meaningfully beyond the 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 compact and every sentence adds distinct information: auth status, catalog behavior, topic behavior, and a tool-discovery caveat. It is front-loaded with the most actionable prompt and wastes no 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?

For a one-optional-parameter, read-only navigator with an output schema, all needed invocation knowledge is present: what it returns, the valid topic modes, no auth requirement, and how it relates to tools/list and tools/call. There are no significant gaps 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating topic keywords and the default null behavior. It is slightly broader than the schema's list (adding buy and benchmark), which is useful but introduces a minor consistency caveat.

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 a precise verb+resource: it is a navigator for the full A2AWire tool surface. It specifies exactly what an invocation returns (a categorized catalog of every callable tool with name + one-liner, or a recommended call sequence by topic), which clearly separates it from the domain-action 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?

It gives explicit when-to-call distinctions: no topic for the full catalog, topic keyword for a call sequence, and it clarifies tools/list vs tools/call. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as get_recommended_action as a when-not-to-use case, so it falls just 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?

The annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces 'Read-only' but also adds meaningful non-obvious context: earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release. This goes beyond what the annotations state and is valuable for the agent.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence leads with the core purpose and then lists the return contents in a compact, scannable way. The second sentence adds an important behavioral caveat about non-custodial settlement without padding.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers the tool's scope, what data it returns, its read-only nature, and a notable settlement behavior. There are no missing prerequisites, side effects, or usage constraints an agent would need.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema already explains that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none is needed.

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 clear verb ('Check') and resource ('earnings') and enumerates exactly what it returns: lifetime USDC, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, and reputation. This level of scope specificity distinguishes it from all sibling tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 makes the usage context obvious: it is for answering questions about earnings as a seller, including pending and unclaimed amounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but with zero parameters and a unique earnings focus, the intended trigger is clear enough.

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 read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: no API key is required, the preview is free, and the underlying listing costs 0.01 USDC/query with a session cap. The wording could be cleaner about the price applying to the paid listing rather than the preview, but it does not contradict the 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 short but padded with redundant promotional language: 'No API key needed' is echoed by 'no key, no payment', and 'call this now' and 'Try one of the sample questions now' do not earn their place. The message would be tighter as a single factual sentence.

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 description gives enough to attempt a call (free, no key, sample questions, a concrete listing), but it does not state what the response will contain, and the price/session-limit sentence is ambiguous about whether it applies to this preview call. With no output schema, a short note on the return value would complete the picture.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description exceeds it by providing a concrete slug value ('techcrunchai') and two sample questions that illustrate how to use the question parameter. This gives an agent concrete call examples that the schema alone does not offer.

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 identifies the resource (the techcrunchai listing) and clearly labels the operation as a 'FREE preview' with sample questions, so an agent can infer it is a no-cost way to sample a listing. It does not use a crisp 'preview X' verb form and mixes in pricing details, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'No API key needed — call this now' and 'FREE preview — no key, no payment' lines imply this is the unpaid entry point, which is useful guidance. However, it never names sibling tools like data_session_query or states when to use this instead of a paid query, so the when-to-use guidance remains implicit.

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 mutability and idempotency, and the description adds useful behavioral context: API-key requirement, guest exclusion, the preference for open_tx_hash, and the paid nature of the access. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 front-loaded: it states the value proposition, prerequisites, parameters, and REST endpoint in only four sentences. Each sentence conveys needed information without padding.

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 lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential call context: endpoint, authentication, session prerequisite, and escrow options. A brief note about what happens after attaching escrow would round it out, but the purpose and siblings make it reasonably inferable.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, session_id is documented in the schema, but open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id are not. The description compensates by identifying them as escrow identifiers and stating open_tx_hash is preferred, though it leaves ambiguity about whether one of them is required.

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 action: attaching a buyer-funded proof escrow to an opened data session to buy per-query access. It also distinguishes itself from the free data_preview alternative, making the tool's 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?

It specifies prerequisites (agent API key, opened data session, funded escrow), authentication methods, and that the tool is not guest-callable. It points users to data_preview for a free taste, which helps with selection, though it does not explicitly contrast with data_session_fund or funding_package.

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 provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that this is a paid, platform-executed funding action, which helps, but it does not clarify charge mechanics, session state changes, or any limitations beyond the listed price.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The listing, price, free-preview pointer, and downstream query step all earn their place without unnecessary 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema provide the essential details: existing session required, paid access, listing, price, and next step. The main omission is clarifying how this relates to data_session_funding_package and data_session_attach_escrow, but that is not critical for invoking 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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, session_id, is already well described as a UUID from data_session_open. The tool description does not need to add parameter details and does not add any, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 action: buy per-query access to live data listings for a specific session, then query. It names a concrete listing and price, and points to data_preview for the free alternative. It does not explicitly differentiate from data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 workflow context: try data_preview first for free, then fund access, then use data_session_query. This implies when the tool is appropriate without stating exclusions or naming every alternative. It does not mention data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, but the basic usage sequence 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?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: per-query billing (0.01 USDC/query), the free preview path, and that the output is fund instructions rather than data or an executed purchase. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded and information-dense. The main purpose appears in the first clause, and every subsequent phrase—free preview, listing, price, return behavior—earns its place with no 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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations, this is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what 'fund instructions' contain and how they feed the next step (e.g., data_session_fund). The many similar sibling tools also make the lack of explicit differentiation costlier.

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 input schema already defines session_id as 'UUID of a data session you opened (from data_session_open).' The description only repeats the data_session_open prerequisite without adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 action ('Buy per-query access to live data listings'), names the specific listing and price, and notes it returns fund instructions. It distinguishes itself from data_preview and data_session_open, but it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named data_session_fund sibling, so it is slightly short of a 5.

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?

Provides useful sequencing: 'first taste free via data_preview' and 'Returns fund instructions after data_session_open.' This gives clear context on when in the workflow to use the tool, but it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so it stops 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?

Annotations only signal non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds useful context: it is a paid/prepaid operation with per-query pricing and a session query limit. However, it does not disclose the full side effects, such as wallet debits, required transaction hashes, or what resources are created, and the financial flow is slightly ambiguous ('prepaid session' followed by 'then fund').

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The listing-specific detail is useful but somewhat distracting, and the workflow is packed into the final sentence. Overall, every sentence earns a place, though the structure could be tighter.

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 6-parameter financial tool with no output schema, the description covers the high-level workflow and pricing but omits what the open call returns, how to obtain or pass listing references, and the role of escrow/transaction fields. The input schema's own detailed description compensates for some of this, so the tool is usable but not fully self-contained.

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 only 50%, and the description adds some value by providing an example listing slug and pricing/query-limit context that is not in the schema. But it does not help clarify open_tx_hash, proof_escrow_id, or max_queries beyond the listing-specific cap, and the 'max 20 queries/session' could be confused with the schema's max_queries maximum of 50.

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 action: buy per-query access and open a prepaid session, with data_session_open as the resource/action pair. It also distinguishes itself from data_preview by calling it the free first taste. However, the hardcoded 'Listing: techcrunchai' may be mistaken for a single-listing restriction rather than an example, and it does not explicitly differentiate from the fund/query 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?

It gives an explicit usage path: use data_preview for the free taste, then open a session, then fund and query. This is clear sequential guidance relative to the sibling tools. It does not state exclusions such as 'do not use if a session is already open', but the workflow is clear enough.

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?

The description discloses meaningful behavioral traits not present in the annotations: each query costs 0.01 USDC, there is a maximum of 20 queries per session, and access is prepaid. It also implies consumption of session funds. It does not mention failure/refund behavior or whether failed queries still count against the quota, but the cost and quota disclosure go well beyond the sparse 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 compact and front-loads the core action, then adds pricing and the required sequence. The specific listing example adds useful context but also some noise; still, every sentence contributes operational or commercial guidance.

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 the core happy path, the description is reasonably complete: it gives the sequence, price, quota, and free-preview alternative. However, with five parameters and no output schema, it omits return-value expectations and the purpose of delivery_receipt and sandbox_receipt. An agent can likely perform the basic query but may struggle with optional receipt-related advanced usage.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not explain k, query, delivery_receipt, or sandbox_receipt. The session_id is explained in the schema, and the cost/quota context hints at the paid nature of query, but several parameters remain semantically underdescribed.

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 identifies the tool as the final step in a prepaid data-session flow: data_session_open → data_session_fund → data_session_query, and the input schema adds 'Run a prepaid query against a funded data session.' It distinguishes itself from data_preview and data_session_fund via the sequence and 'first taste free via data_preview.' Minor ambiguity remains because 'Buy per-query access' could be read as the funding step rather than the query execution step.

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 workflow guidance: open a session, fund it, then query. It also points users to data_preview for a free first taste, which helps an agent decide between the preview and paid query path. It does not spell out explicit 'do not use when...' conditions, but the sequence makes the intended usage 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns ranked matches and a total count for pagination, and it mentions optional semantic search.

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?

One tightly worded sentence delivers the core purpose, the key filters, and the pagination-relevant return behavior. There is no filler, and the most important actions are 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 nine parameters, but the schema descriptions fully document every one, including defaults, enums, and mutual exclusivity, and an output schema exists. The description covers the core use case and pagination; it does not mention verified, sorting, or include_unreachable, but those are already clearly specified in the schema, so nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented with descriptions, defaults, enum values, and mutual-exclusion notes. The description only highlights capability, minimum reputation, and semantic search; it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('agents') and names the principal filters: capability, minimum reputation, and semantic search. It also states the return behavior well enough to distinguish it from sibling tools focused on paid work, sessions, or contracts.

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 this tool is for discovering agents, but it never states when to use it instead of siblings like find_paid_work or get_recommended_action. There is no explicit when-not guidance or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name and schema.

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful traits beyond that: no API key required, a return shape of open jobs plus a matched subset, and the follow-up workflow to start_job. It does not disclose error or rate-limit behavior, but this is minor given the strong annotation coverage.

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 four sentences, all relevant: immediate callability, core purpose, filtering behaviors, return shape, and next-step action. It is front-loaded with the no-key call-to-action and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 filtered read tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, output shape, and workflow, while an output schema exists to detail the return fields. It does not explain how the 'skill' matching subset is determined, but this is likely covered by the output schema and the capability parameter 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 schema already documents defaults and allowed values for all three parameters. The description enriches this by noting capability filtering is case-insensitive and that testnet is preferred for cold-start, which are semantics not present in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3.

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: it finds paid work on the A2AWire job board and filters by capability and network. It also mentions the follow-up start_job action, which adds context, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like discover_agents or get_recommended_action, so it is clear without sibling differentiation.

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 practical usage context: it says no API key is needed, instructs the agent to call it now, recommends preferring testnet for cold-start, and indicates the next step is calling start_job. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternative siblings, so it lacks exclusions or alternative routing.

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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: no API key is needed, the descriptor is hash-verifiable, and the result is identical to /.well-known/agent.json. This meaningfully extends the agent's understanding beyond the 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 short and front-loaded with the most actionable fact ('No API key needed — call this now'). The content is efficient, though the phrase 'call this now' is slightly promotional and 'Fetch' is repeated; still, every sentence contributes useful information.

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 discovery tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what is returned, why it can be called immediately, how it relates to the standard .well-known endpoint, and how to use it for contract validation. Nothing essential is missing 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.' With 100% schema description coverage and no params, the description carries no additional parameter burden. This matches the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 fetches a hash-verifiable AgentContractV1 descriptor (version + schema_url + schema_hash) and hosted_runtime facts, matching /.well-known/agent.json. The verb and resource are specific, and the tool's role is unambiguous. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with verify_contract, but the purpose is not vague.

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 says 'No API key needed — call this now' and instructs to fetch schema_url and match schema_hash before acting, giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like verify_contract, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it performs a state-based lookup and returns an invocation suggestion (tool + pre-filled args) rather than executing an action. It does not repeat annotation facts nor contradict them.

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 tight and front-loaded: an orienting question, a compact conditional map, and the return contract. The semicolon-separated state transitions efficiently convey conditional behavior without extra wording. Every segment earns its place, and no information is redundant.

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 no-input recommendation tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the basis (current state), the main transition paths, and the return shape. A minor gap is the lack of guidance for states outside the three listed, but the listed states cover the core onboarding flow and the annotations cover side-effect expectations.

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 has zero parameters and the schema description already states the owner is derived from the authenticated principal (100% schema coverage). Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; it clarifies that only implicit user state is consumed.

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 defines the tool as a one-call recommendation engine that returns the single next tool plus pre-filled args based on the user's current state. It distinguishes itself from the sibling action tools (register, onboard_start, find_paid_work) by framing itself as the meta-decision layer: 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog.'

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 when-to-use context: call when you need to know what to do next, with state-conditioned outcomes (unregistered→register, unverified→start admission, verified→find paid work). It implies the alternative is manually selecting from the catalog but does not explicitly name a fallback sibling or state when not to use this tool, falling just short of the strongest routing guidance.

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 destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns by explicitly revealing that the tool funds an escrow on-chain with USDC, which implies financial movement and irreversible side effects. It also adds useful context that the buyer agent is derived from the authenticated principal, not from arguments. No contradiction with 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and the key side effect (on-chain funding), and the second sentence situates the tool for its target audience. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 tool's complexity—financial side effects, marketplace search, escrow creation, and execution—the description covers the full lifecycle in a compact way. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. A minor gap is that it does not warn about irreversibility or potential cost beyond 'funds the escrow,' but the destructive annotation and explicit USDC funding mitigate this.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: only capability, task, and price ceiling 'travel' in the call, and the buyer identity is derived from authentication. This clarifies the role of max_price_usdc as a ceiling and reinforces that no agent identity parameter should be supplied.

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 action ('Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task') and details the full pipeline: search, escrow creation, on-chain USDC funding, execution, and result return. It explicitly brands itself as the 'one-call bridge' for local orchestrators, which clearly distinguishes it from multi-step sibling tools like data_session_attach_escrow and data_session_fund.

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 defines the intended context: local orchestrators such as Claude Code and Cursor needing a single call into the marketplace. It implies the alternative is a manual multi-step flow, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it. Still, the 'one-call bridge' positioning gives an agent clear situational guidance.

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 carry the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the exact payload the agent will receive (agents, manifests, checklist, testnet config, next actions), which sets expectations beyond a simple 'returns status'. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the purpose question front-loads intent, and the enumeration of five concrete output categories is information-dense without being bloated. Every clause earns its place.

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 is simple (0 params), has a rich output schema, and fully annotated behavior (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description covers what the agent will receive, and the output schema covers structure, so nothing material 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; the schema description goes further by explaining 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal', which preempts any confusion about missing arguments. This pushes it to a 5.

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 the question 'Where am I in onboarding?' and states the verb 'Returns' with a specific resource list: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and actionable next steps. This specific verb+resource framing clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like a2awire_guide or check_earnings.

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 question framing ('Where am I in onboarding?') establishes a clear context for when to call the tool: whenever the agent or user needs to know onboarding status or next steps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The description adds cost/permission context (free, no API key, no wallet) but does not disclose what register actually does: creating or linking an agent identity, issuing an API key, possibly auto-provisioning a testnet wallet, or that the action may not be idempotent. Since annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description carries more responsibility than it fulfills.

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 short and front-loaded with the most actionable information ('No API key needed — call this now'). It is slightly redundant, repeating the call-to-action twice, but it remains efficient and easy to scan.

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 a complex 15-parameter schema and output schema, the description only covers one narrow consumer scenario (techcrunchai purchase tools). It omits that register is an onboarding/API-key issuance tool, that all fields are optional, and how it relates to the sibling onboard_start tool. An agent would need the title and schema to understand the tool's full scope.

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%, so the baseline is 3: all 15 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning, though 'no wallet needed' hints that wallet-related fields can be omitted, which is consistent with the schema's optional wallet fields.

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 says to call register on this session to unlock purchase tools for techcrunchai, which gives a specific verb, resource, and outcome. The title 'Register / Get API Key' adds clarity, but the description does not distinguish register from the sibling onboard_start or mention the broader onboarding purpose.

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 conveys when to call this tool ('call this now', 'to unlock the purchase tools') and what is NOT needed ('No API key needed', 'Free — no wallet needed'). However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what alternatives exist, or whether onboard_start should be called first.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the tool performs an independent on-chain verification and returns a live snapshot of the contract's address, network info, and ABI summary. No contradictions with the annotations are present.

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 action ('Independently verify') and then lists the valuable return fields. Every word adds information, and there is no filler or duplication of schema content.

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 tool with a rich output schema and complete annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what is verified, how independent it is, and what the caller will receive. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke this 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema already documents that no arguments are required and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to explain, the description owes nothing further; this is the appropriate baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('verify'), names the exact resource ('EscrowVault on-chain'), and lists the concrete outputs the agent can expect (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like get_agent_contract or data_session_attach_escrow, which address different contracts or actions.

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 phrase 'independently verify' implies this is the tool to use when a direct, unmediated on-chain check of the EscrowVault is needed. However, the description never states when to use this over alternatives such as get_agent_contract, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use scenarios. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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