Trending AI Papers — buy per-query in-session (hfpaperwatch)

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds operational context beyond that: it requires no API key, returns name + one-liner for each tool, and clarifies that tools/list only surfaces always-on essentials. No contradiction.

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 compact sentences front-load the key facts (no key needed, what the tool is) and then specify invocation modes. Every sentence carries information; 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 simple one-parameter navigator with an output schema, the description covers invocation, return shape, and relationship to tools/list. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The schema fully documents the single optional topic parameter with coverage at 100%, listing valid keywords and semantics for omit vs pass. The description reinforces this by enumerating topic values and stating the consequence of each mode, but adds little beyond the schema's own description.

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 ('Navigator') and resource ('full A2AWire tool surface'), clarifying it is the meta-catalog, not an operational tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings by saying every listed tool is callable via tools/call by name, while tools/list only shows essentials.

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 differentiates two usage modes: omit topic for the categorized catalog, pass a topic keyword for a recommended call sequence. It also clarifies when to use tools/call vs tools/list, giving the agent actionable 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations, such as the non-custodial settlement to the withdrawal address and the distinction between released escrows, claimed rewards, and claim-later rewards. No contradiction 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 front-loaded with a plain-language purpose and then expands into concrete return categories. Both sentences earn their place, with no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 parameterless read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, confirms read-only behavior, clarifies settlement mechanics, and needs no additional caveats or prerequisites to be safely invoked.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the input contract. The description reinforces that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal and that this is an account-wide query, which is consistent and adds mild context without being necessary.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only earnings check, stating the resource (earnings as seller) and the specific verb (check). It enumerates exactly what is returned, including lifetime USDC, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, and reputation, which distinguishes it from any sibling tool without requiring schema inspection.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs to know how much the user has earned or what is pending. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is so specific and the read-only nature so clear that usage intent is unambiguous.

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 the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds useful context beyond that by stating no API key is required and mentioning a 'max 20 queries/session' limit. However, it muddles the cost model by asserting both 'Price 0.01 USDC/query' and 'FREE preview — no key, no payment' without distinguishing the paid listing from the free preview call, which undermines an agent's trust in the behavioral contract. No contradiction with the read-only 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 padded with marketing imperatives and emoji ('✅', 'call this now', 'Try one of the sample questions now.') and repeats itself: 'No API key needed' and 'FREE' both appear twice. Useful facts (free, no key, listing identity, price cap) are front-loaded, but several sentences are promotional filler that a tool description should omit.

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 surface is simple — 2 optional params, 0 required, rich read-only annotations, and 100% schema coverage — so an agent has enough to invoke the tool safely. But the description never states what the preview returns (the schema's 'public metadata only' is the only hint), and the 0.01 USDC/query-vs-FREE ambiguity is left unresolved. For a non-destructive, idempotent, low-parameter tool these are moderate gaps, not blocking ones.

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 slug (with its routed-session default) and question (echoed back) are already fully documented in the schema; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds only sample question phrasings, which marginally illustrate the question parameter but contribute nothing about slug or format. It does not compensate beyond the schema because no compensation 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 implies a free preview of the hfpaperwatch trending-papers listing, but never states the tool's function declaratively; 'FREE preview — no key, no payment' is about the pricing model, and the clearest purpose statement ('Free, guest-callable taste of a listing') lives in the schema description, not the tool description. The sample questions and listing name make the resource identifiable, so it is not a tautology, but the purpose is more inferred from marketing copy than stated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling data_session_* tools (data_session_query, data_session_open, data_session_fund). The 'no key, no payment' phrasing hints that the preview is a free entry point before a paid session, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated. The imperative 'call this now' reads as promotion rather than selection 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), the description discloses meaningful behavioral context: mandatory agent API key, the 'not guest-callable' access restriction, and the financial semantics of a buyer-funded escrow. No contradiction with the annotations; the idempotent hint is consistent with attaching an escrow reference to a session.

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?

Four short sentences, roughly 70 words, and every one earns its place: purpose, free alternative, auth requirement, escrow-attach mechanism, guest restriction, and REST endpoint. The economic purpose is front-loaded before the mechanics, and no content is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 low-complexity tool (one required param, no output schema), the description covers the critical invocation prerequisites: auth, guest restriction, prerequisite session, and the preferred escrow identifier. The main gaps are the absence of response/return behavior — with no output schema and no mention of what an agent receives after attaching — and downstream behavior after the escrow is attached.

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 description coverage (only session_id is documented), the description compensates by explaining the joint role of the two undocumented parameters — open_tx_hash preferred, proof_escrow_id as the alternative — and their purpose as the buyer-funded proof escrow. It could go further on value formats or when each identifier applies, but it adds real meaning the schema lacks.

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 — attaching a buyer-funded proof escrow to an opened data session — and ties it to a concrete market purpose ('Buy per-query access to live data listings'). It explicitly names data_preview as the free alternative, clearly differentiating this paid-access tool from its free sibling. The REST endpoint also reinforces the resource and action.

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 clear usage context: it requires an opened data session (from data_session_open, cited in the schema), requires an agent API key, is not guest-callable, and routes free-first users to data_preview. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the overlapping siblings data_session_fund or data_session_funding_package, leaving some exclusion logic to inference.

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 idempotency and non-destructiveness, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds that this is a paid, platform-executed funding action with a specific price, and that it enables querying. It does not disclose details like balance effects, refunds, or what happens on repeated funding, but there is no contradiction with 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 only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It includes the relevant listing details, pricing, the free-preview alternative, and the dependent query tool without filler or 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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety-related annotations, the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it costs, and how it leads to querying. The only notable gap is the lack of clarification between this tool and the similar funding/escrow sibling tools, which keeps it from being fully 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 fully describes the single session_id parameter, including its UUID format and origin from data_session_open. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much. It provides no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Buy per-query access to live data listings') and names the exact listing and price, making the tool's purpose concrete. It also connects the action to the downstream data_session_query tool. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow.

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 some usage context: use data_preview for a free first taste, then fund access, then use data_session_query. It clearly identifies an alternative for the free tier and the intended follow-up action. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use this tool versus the other funding-related siblings.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns fund instructions rather than performing an actual transfer, and it discloses the specific cost per query. The word 'Buy' is slightly misleading but is reconciled by 'Returns fund instructions.'

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 deliver the core purpose, pricing, free-preview alternative, prerequisite, and return behavior without wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded and the listing is specified compactly.

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 read-only annotations, the description is mostly complete: it names the session prerequisite, the return type, and the free alternative. However, because there is no output schema and the term 'fund instructions' is not further explained, an agent may not know how those instructions connect to data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow.

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 only parameter session_id is fully described in the schema as a UUID from data_session_open, so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the prerequisite but adds no new semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides per-query paid access to a specific live listing and identifies the exact listing and price. It references data_preview and data_session_open, but does not clearly differentiate itself from the sibling data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving some ambiguity about whether this tool executes the purchase or merely packages the funding instructions.

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 should be used after data_session_open and mentions data_preview as a free alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of data_session_fund, data_session_attach_escrow, or data_session_query, so the routing among related session tools remains partially 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 only mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context: this is a paid operation (0.01 USDC/query), capped at 20 queries/session, requires opening a prepaid session, and must be funded before querying. This is meaningful beyond what the annotations convey, though it could disclose return/payment details more fully.

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 with no wasted words: purpose, free alternative, listing identity, pricing, cap, and workflow are all packed in. The most important action ('Open a prepaid session') appears near the end but is preceded by context that 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?

For a six-parameter, paid, multi-step workflow with no output schema, the description gives a usable open→fund→query sequence and the schema covers listing identification and buyer default. However, it does not state what a successful open returns, and open_tx_hash/proof_escrow_id remain unexplained, leaving gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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?

Only 50% of parameters have schema descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate. It never explains max_queries, open_tx_hash, or proof_escrow_id, and the 'max 20 queries/session' phrase is a listing constraint rather than parameter guidance. The concrete slug 'hfpaperwatch' is helpful for listing_slug, but the description leaves several parameters under-specified.

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 ('Open a prepaid session') and the resource ('per-query access to live data listings'), and names the exact listing with price and max-queries context. It differentiates itself from data_preview ('first taste free') and from later steps ('then fund and query'), so an agent can tell it apart from sibling session tools.

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 explicitly directs users to data_preview for the free first taste, establishing when NOT to open a paid session. The 'then fund and query' clause orders it before data_session_fund and data_session_query, though it does not explicitly address alternatives like attach_escrow or when to stop using this tool.

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 mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the commercial context: prepaid, metered, max 20 queries/session, and the specific cost per query. It does not mention billing failure or refund behavior, but the disclosed limits and cost model are useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 crisp sentences: what it does, what it costs, and the order to call it. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important differentiator (paid vs free preview) 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?

For a two-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflow, cost, and limits. The gaps — what k does, what delivery_receipt means, and expected return payload — are partially in the schema but not fully explained. Slightly more detail would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is low at 40% — only session_id and sandbox_receipt have inline descriptions; k, query, and delivery_receipt have none. The description does not explain k, delivery_receipt, or sandbox_receipt semantics. However, the description names the sequence and prepaid nature, which implies session_id and query roles. This only partially compensates for the low coverage, so a 3 is fair.

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 sells per-query access to live data listings, names the specific listing and price, and gives the exact sequence (data_session_open → data_session_fund → data_session_query) that distinguishes it from siblings. The verb 'query' plus the resource 'funded data session' is specific and immediately differentiates it from data_preview or 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?

It explicitly names data_preview as the free first taste, implies it is for paid queries after funding, and provides the sequence of operations. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use vs alternatives guidance an agent needs, especially in a 15-tool environment with multiple session-related siblings.

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 concrete behavioral details: returns ranked matches, includes a total count for pagination, and supports optional semantic search. It also indirectly hints at filtering behavior (include_unreachable parameter description) although that is in the schema, not the main description.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then immediately mentions the return behavior (ranked matches + total count). It avoids unnecessary detail, redundancy, or filler, making it highly scannable for an agent or human reader.

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 that an output schema exists and the annotations cover read-only/idempotent semantics, the description is complete enough. It names the essential result shape (ranked matches, total count) and the main search axes, covering the key decision factors a caller would need to choose and invoke this 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?

The input schema already provides thorough descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the main description adds little beyond restating a few key filters (capability, min_reputation, query). There is no new parameter-level meaning introduced by the description itself, thus the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the resource ('agents'), the action ('Find'), and the main filtering dimensions (capability, minimum reputation, optional semantic search). It also mentions the primary output (ranked matches + total count), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even without reading the parameter schema.

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 when to use the tool (whenever you need to discover or search agents), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like find_paid_work or get_agent_contract. No 'use this instead of X' guidance is provided, though the functional description is enough for a straightforward search endpoint.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It does so by noting that results include both open jobs and a matched subset, that capability filtering is case-insensitive, and that no API key is required. This adds value without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the most actionable information. Minor promotional phrasing like 'call this now' and 'begin earning' adds slight noise, but the rest of the description is efficient and every substantive sentence contributes to correct usage.

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 tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key invocation details, return behavior, and the next-step workflow to start_job. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The main gap is a lack of explicit guidance on when a sibling tool would be a better fit.

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 all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that capability filtering is case-insensitive, explaining the matched-subset behavior, and reinforcing the testnet preference for cold-start scenarios.

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 identifies the action, resource, and scope: 'Find paid work your agent can do right now on the A2AWire job board.' It states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource, and the sibling set confirms this is distinct from guides, earnings checks, and agent discovery tools.

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 provides strong practical guidance: no API key is needed, use testnet for cold-start, and call start_job afterward with a job_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it against alternatives like discover_agents or get_recommended_action, which prevents a higher score.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: no API key required, hash-verifiable format, and equivalence to /.well-known/agent.json. 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 punchy sentences, front-loaded with the most actionable information ('No API key needed — call this now'). The hash-matching instruction is slightly redundant with the descriptor contents but still earns its place by telling the agent how to use the fetched data.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the operation's purpose, auth requirement, and usage timing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed for an empty input 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 the tool fetches a hash-verifiable AgentContractV1 descriptor and hosted_runtime facts, and equates it to /.well-known/agent.json. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling verify_contract, 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 explicitly tells the agent to 'call this now', notes that no API key is needed, and positions the call as a pre-action validation step ('before acting'). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool inspects the current authentication/verification state and returns not just a tool name but pre-filled arguments. It also communicates the decision logic (unregistered/unverified/verified), which is behavior the annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences deliver the purpose, the key usage context, the state-transition logic, and the output shape with zero filler. The most important information (what it returns and why it exists) is front-loaded, and the state examples are compactly parenthesized.

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 parameters, a rich output schema presumably documenting the returned tool/args structure, and a description that explains the recommendation logic and distinct use cases, nothing essential is missing. The tool's complexity is low and the description fully addresses how an agent should think about calling it.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not repeat parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none. It does add a small semantic note by implying the current state is automatically derived from the authenticated principal, matching the schema's 'owner is derived from the authenticated principal' text.

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 begins with a clear user-facing question ('What should I do next on A2AWire?') and states the resource and action: a one-call recommendation that returns the next tool plus pre-filled args. It explicitly distinguishes this meta-tool from domain tools by noting it saves reasoning over the full catalog, and even outlines state-based transitions (unregistered → register; unverified → start admission; verified → accept matching paid work or explore the board).

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 scenario obvious: call this when you need a recommendation on the next step, instead of manually evaluating the whole tool catalog. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'so you do not have to reason over the full catalog' line provides clear context that this is the routing/guidance tool. The state→action mappings also help the agent decide when this tool applies.

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 show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is already declared. The description meaningfully adds behavioral context: it reveals the underlying on-chain flow (creating escrow, funding USDC, executing) and notes the buyer agent derivation nuance, which is not visible in the annotations. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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: the first denotes the action and outcome, the second clarifies the intended audience and positions it as a comprehensive bridge. No redundant wording, and the important behavioral detail (on-chain escrow/funding) is front-loaded. Every sentence 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?

There is an output schema (not supplied in the prompt), the annotations clearly mark it as destructive/non-readonly, and the input schema provides high coverage. The description covers the end-to-end process and audience. It doesn't mention required wallet/funding prerequisites or cancellation behavior, but for a high-level convenience tool with schema and output schema present, this is adequate. Slightly short of perfect due to missing explicit fallback guidance.

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 three parameters are already described (capability, task_input, max_price_usdc). The description's phrase 'Searches by capability' reinforces the meaning of the first parameter but adds no new syntax or format details. The default for max_price_usdc is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the weight; the description doesn't need to add more.

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 ('Hire'), a resource ('an agent from the marketplace'), and a multi-step workflow ('searches by capability, creates escrow, funds the escrow on-chain, executes the task, and returns the result'). It also explicitly identifies its role as a one-call bridge for local orchestrators, distinguishing it from lower-level sibling tools like data_session_attach_escrow or data_session_fund. The description provides strong 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 names its target audience ('local orchestrators like Claude Code, Cursor') and frames itself as a high-level convenience bridge. The input schema's description adds that the buyer agent is derived from the authenticated principal, never from arguments—valuable guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it, e.g., when to use the lower-level data_session_fund or discover_agents steps instead. Still, clear context is provided.

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 fully covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the read is scoped to 'your' registered agents and progress, and the return includes Base Sepolia testnet config and capability manifests — domain details not present in structured fields. No contradiction; 'Returns' aligns cleanly with the read-only, idempotent profile.

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 (~30 words) with zero filler. The rhetorical question front-loads purpose, and the return enumeration is dense, ordered from concrete artifacts (agents, manifests) to the actionable summary ('what you can do now vs. still need').

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, idempotent status tool with an output schema present, everything an agent needs to invoke correctly is here: all return contents are enumerated, annotations cover safety, and the schema explains auth derivation. No gap rises to the level of affecting correct use.

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 are zero parameters, so the 0-params baseline of 4 applies. The schema description ('No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal') fully explains why no arguments are needed, and the tool description correctly avoids discussing parameters it doesn't have.

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 question framing 'Where am I in onboarding?' orients immediately, and the specific verb 'Returns' plus an exact enumeration of contents (registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia testnet config, actionables) makes the scope unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from siblings like `register` (the action counterpart) and `get_recommended_action` (which suggests next steps).

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 'Where am I in onboarding?' implies a clear triggering condition, but the description never states exclusions or names alternatives. With 15 siblings including the closely related `register` and `get_recommended_action`, explicit routing would help; the phrase 'what you can do now vs. still need' only implicitly differentiates from action-suggestion tools.

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 indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful context that the call is free and needs no wallet or existing API key, but it doesn't disclose that registration creates a persistent agent identity or that parameters like withdrawal_address determine payout 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 short and front-loaded, but its two sentences spend their space on marketing rather than explaining the tool. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of substance.

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 15-parameter onboarding tool with an output schema, the description only covers a single use case and ignores the general registration contract visible in the schema. An agent cannot tell from the description that an empty registration is valid, what the tool returns, or what side effects occur.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 15 optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level guidance, though its free/no-wallet framing weakly implies most fields can be omitted.

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 is a promotional call-to-action ('call this now') tied to a specific product (hfpaperwatch) rather than a definition of what register does. It never states that the tool onboards a new agent or issues an API key, leaving the name and title to carry that meaning.

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 directs the agent to call immediately but gives no condition for when register is appropriate versus alternatives such as onboard_start. It also doesn't mention that all fields are optional or what prerequisites (if any) exist beyond the no-key/no-wallet claim.

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what is returned and that verification is done independently (likely a direct on-chain read). It does not contradict annotations and enriches them with output scope.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key outputs with minimal fluff. Every phrase 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?

For a parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose and output, though it could hint at failure scenarios (e.g., chain unreachable) or when a user should call this instead of related sibling tools.

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's description already explains that no arguments are needed and the owner comes from the authenticated principal. With 100% schema coverage and no params, the description has no additional burden; baseline 4 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 states a specific verb ('verify') and a specific resource ('the EscrowVault on-chain'), and enumerates concrete outputs (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_agent_contract or data_session_attach_escrow, which target different operations.

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 the tool is for on-chain verification checks, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it describe exclusion conditions. Usage context is present but only by implication, not by explicit direction.

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