PubMed Biomedical Papers — new research articles ($0.01/query)

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

The description states no API key is needed and implies a read-only, non-destructive nature consistent with the annotations. It does not explicitly mention the absence of side effects, but the annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

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 with the most important call-to-action. There is mild redundancy between the main description and the schema description, but it does not harm clarity.

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 output schema is provided, and the description explains what the tool returns in both invocation modes. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 single optional topic parameter is fully documented in the schema with allowed keywords and the default behavior when omitted. The description reinforces the possible values and their meaning.

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 navigator/guide for the A2AWire tool surface, distinguishing it from sibling action tools. It explicitly defines the no-topic catalog behavior and the topic-based recommended-sequence behavior.

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 concrete invocation guidance: call with no topic for the full catalog, or pass a flow keyword for a recommended sequence. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for appropriate use.

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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds extra behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that earnings settle 'non-custodially to your withdrawal address on release,' which tells the agent that the tool returns account state rather than moving funds. It also clarifies the composition of 'earned' via 'released escrows plus claimed rewards.' 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 no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence packs a dense list of outputs into a single readable clause. Every phrase adds value, and the read-only/non-custodial caveat is placed efficiently at the end.

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-argument read-only tool with an output schema present, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool returns, the scope (seller earnings), and the behavioral caveat. Nothing is missing that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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 has zero parameters and explicitly states the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to document, the description carries no burden here; the baseline of 4 applies because the schema-description coverage is essentially complete and the description adds context about which data is returned.

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?

Opens with an exact verb and resource: 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending.' The description then enumerates the specific returned data (lifetime USDC as seller, in-flight pending, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, reputation), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from any generic read tool.

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 clearly frames the tool as the earnings check for the authenticated principal, and the read-only note signals it is safe to invoke when the user asks about earnings. There are no sibling tools for earnings, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary; clear context without alternatives is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds useful constraints: no API key required, 0.01 USDC/query, max 20 queries/session. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies pricing/rate limits without contradicting 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 about 50 words and front-loads the key 'no key needed' message, but it repeats 'FREE preview — no key, no payment' after already saying no API key needed. The promotional tone and redundancy prevent a higher score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides pricing, examples, and listing identity, but it never states what the response contains (e.g., a sample of matching public metadata). The schema description covers 'public metadata only,' but the main description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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 documents both optional parameters (slug and question), so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete sample question strings that map directly to the question parameter, which helps an agent formulate valid input.

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 (pubmedwatch listing) and the action (free preview, sample questions), so an agent can tell it's a preview tool. It lacks an explicit verb phrase like 'preview a data listing' and doesn't contrast with sibling query tools, so it isn't 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 description tells when to call ('no API key needed', 'FREE preview') and suggests sample questions, but it never mentions when not to use it or names alternatives such as data_session_query. The 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.

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint (false), destructiveHint (false), and idempotentHint (true). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires an agent API key (Authorization: Bearer or X-API-Key), is not guest-callable, and involves a buyer-funded payment ('Buy per-query access'). These details are beyond the annotations and help the agent understand authentication and financial implications.

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 compact five-sentence paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose ('Buy per-query access') before detailing prerequisites, the action, constraints, and the REST endpoint. Each sentence carries information, though the opening phrase 'first taste free via data_preview' is slightly promotional. Overall, it is appropriately sized and well-organized.

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 tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it (after opening a session), required authentication, and the HTTP call. It does not describe success/error responses or clarify the relationship with data_session_fund, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly, especially given the idempotentHint annotation. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 33% (session_id has a description; open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id do not). The description compensates partially by stating that open_tx_hash is preferred and proof_escrow_id is an alternative, and clarifies they are references to a buyer-funded proof escrow. However, it does not explain how these identifiers are obtained or their exact roles beyond the schema constraints, so it does not fully bridge the coverage gap.

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: 'Attach a buyer-funded proof escrow ... to an opened data session.' The verb 'attach' and resource 'proof escrow' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like data_session_open (opening) and data_session_fund (funding) by naming the escrow attachment action. It also provides the REST endpoint, further clarifying its role.

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 contextual usage guidance: it mentions 'Buy per-query access' and points to data_preview as a free alternative, implies the need for an already opened session ('to an opened data session'), and states prerequisites (API key, not guest-callable). It does not explicitly name sibling tools for comparison, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use 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?

The description discloses that the platform executes funding and that access costs 0.01 USDC/query, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, though it does not detail failure modes or 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 concise and well structured, with each sentence providing useful information about purpose, pricing, and workflow.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema provide sufficient context; return behavior is not stated but is not required here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single session_id parameter is fully described in the schema as a UUID from data_session_open; the description adds no further parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool funds per-query access to a live data listing, names the specific listing and price, and distinguishes it from the free data_preview option.

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 mentions using data_preview for a free first taste and then data_session_query after funding, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like data_session_attach_escrow or data_session_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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by saying the tool 'returns fund instructions' rather than executing a payment, clarifying that 'buy' is not an immediate transfer, and it identifies the specific listing. No contradiction with annotations is 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 compact sentence that front-loads the action, then efficiently covers the free alternative, listing identity, price, and expected output. Every clause earns its place and there is 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 one-parameter tool, the description is mostly self-contained: it names the required session concept, the listing, and the output type ('fund instructions'). The main gap is that the contents or format of those fund instructions are not described, and with no output schema, an agent has limited guidance on what to do with the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully documents the single session_id parameter, including its UUID format and origin from data_session_open, giving 100% schema coverage. The description reinforces the sequencing but adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 opens with a specific action verb ('Buy per-query access') and a concrete resource ('live data listings'), names a specific listing (pubmedwatch), and differentiates itself from data_preview by calling out the free first taste. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling data_session_open/fund/query 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 points the agent to data_preview for a free trial and states that fund instructions come 'after data_session_open', giving clear sequencing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving exclusions implicit rather than explicit.

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 cost (0.01 USDC/query) and a query limit (max 20 queries/session), which are behavioral traits beyond the sparse annotations (which only indicate it's not read-only). It also mentions the session is prepaid, implying a financial transaction. However, it doesn't elaborate on transaction mechanics (e.g., open_tx_hash) or potential side effects, so it adds value but could be more explicit.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It includes pricing and an example listing without excessive detail. The structure is efficient, though the listing info is embedded mid-sentence, making it slightly less scannable.

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 tool that opens a paid session with five parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, return behavior (what does it return? a session ID?), and the exact relationship between opening, funding, and querying. The example listing provides some context, but essential operational details are 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 has zero parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It only provides context for listing_id via the pubmedwatch example; buyer_address, max_queries, open_tx_hash, and proof_escrow_id remain unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to construct a valid request.

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 and resource: buy per-query access by opening a prepaid data session. It names a concrete listing (pubmedwatch) and clearly differentiates from data_preview (free) and the subsequent fund/query steps. An agent can easily identify this as the tool to open a paid session.

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: use this for paid access after a free taste via data_preview. It outlines the workflow (open, then fund and query), implying that data_preview is the alternative for free access and that other tools handle funding and querying. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the guidance 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 are all false and offer no safety/side-effect hints, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: per-query billing, 0.01 USDC cost, max 20 queries/session, and a paid-vs-free distinction. However, it does not disclose what happens on unfunded sessions, how results are returned, or how delivery_receipt/sandbox_receipt affect execution.

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 information-dense sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, then the free alternative, specific listing details, and the required sequence follow in order. 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?

Without an output schema and with mostly unhelpful annotations, the description must provide enough context for correct invocation. It gives pricing and workflow but omits parameter meanings, expected response shape, and failure/edge-case behavior. An agent would struggle to fill k, query, and delivery_receipt correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 40% (session_id and sandbox_receipt have descriptions); query, k, and delivery_receipt are undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description mentions the dataset and pricing but says nothing about how to construct the query, what k controls, or what delivery_receipt is for. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb (buy per-query access) and resource (live data listings), names a concrete listing (pubmedwatch at 0.01 USDC), and distinguishes the tool from data_preview and the session lifecycle steps via the explicit sequence. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does relative to 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?

Explicitly routes free first-use to data_preview ('first taste free via data_preview') and lays out the required predecessor steps: data_session_open → data_session_fund → data_session_query. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use 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 the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it returns ranked matches and includes a total count for pagination. It also implies default filtering behavior (e.g., hiding unreachable agents) via the parameter description, making the tool's runtime behavior transparent.

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 overall definition is compact and well-organized. The description is a single sentence that captures the essence without redundancy, and the input schema follows a clear, logical grouping of filters, pagination, and sorting. No unnecessary text or repetitive information is present.

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 output schema exists (as indicated by context signals) and the description already mentions the return shape (ranked matches plus total count), the essential information for invoking the tool is complete. The sibling tools provide enough context for an agent to distinguish this discovery operation from other actions like hiring or contracting.

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?

All 9 parameters have explicit descriptions with semantics, ranges, defaults, and mutual exclusivity constraints (e.g., query vs. query_embedding). The descriptions clarify edge cases like exact-match capability tags and the 0–1 reputation scale, leaving no ambiguity about how each parameter affects results.

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 with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('agents'), along with the key filtering dimensions (capability, reputation, semantic search). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like find_paid_work, which target work opportunities rather than agent discovery.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (any time agent discovery is needed) and the optional filters make the use cases clear. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the tool's role is self-evident given the sibling set and the read-only, search-oriented nature.

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 no-auth access, return composition (open jobs plus matched subset), and a follow-up earning path. No contradiction with annotations, though pagination/rate-limit details are not mentioned.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the need-to-know 'no API key' signal appears first and each clause adds information. Minor redundancy from 'right now' appearing twice and 'call this now' being an instruction rather than pure description keeps it from a 5.

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 0 required parameters, complete schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The only caveat is that it references 'start_job' as a follow-up, but that tool is not present in the provided sibling list.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful 'case-insensitive' capability matching detail and reinforces the testnet default, adding value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: 'Find paid work ... on the A2AWire job board' and states it returns open jobs plus a skill-matched subset. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discover_agents or get_recommended_action, 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?

'No API key needed — call this now' gives a direct go signal, and 'prefer testnet for cold-start' plus 'then call start_job' provide workflow context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool routing, so not 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 mentions validation of schema_hash and no API key requirement, and annotations confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. There is no contradiction, though it does not detail exact output shape or error 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 brief and front-loaded with the most important fact (no API key needed) and the action. It repeats 'fetch' twice, which is slightly redundant but not harmful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters and annotations, the description provides enough context for calling the tool and validates the purpose. It lacks detail about response format, but that is not strictly required for 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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly notes the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, so no parameter explanation 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 clearly states the tool fetches an AgentV1 descriptor and hosted runtime facts, with a specific resource path equivalent. It is distinct from sibling tools like verify_contract by focusing on retrieval.

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 says no API key is needed and advises calling it before acting, which gives practical timing guidance. It could more explicitly contrast with verify_contract, but the usage intent 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?

The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description confirms it returns a recommendation only. It does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, but the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint cover this adequately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the guiding question, states the tool's purpose, gives concrete state-to-action mappings, and summarizes the output. No unnecessary information is included.

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 zero-parameter input and the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to use the tool, what it returns, and how it relates to the overall workflow. The output schema is not shown, but the description sufficiently describes the output's purpose.

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 states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal,' so there are no parameters to describe. The description adds no extra input-parameter detail, but this is not a significant gap given the zero-parameter 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's purpose: to recommend the next action on A2AWire and return a single next tool with pre-filled arguments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on state-based recommendation rather than direct 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 description explicitly maps user states to appropriate next steps (unregistered → register, unverified → start admission, verified → accept matching paid work or explore the board). It also explains that the tool removes the need to reason over the full catalog, making its usage conditions 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 mark the tool as destructive, not read-only, and not idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it creates escrow, funds on-chain in USDC, executes the task, and returns the result. This gives an agent a concrete sense of the side effects 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 three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the operational flow and the one-call positioning. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover destructiveness, non-idempotence, and openness, the description is largely complete: it names inputs, flow, side effects, and result. It could go slightly further on the cost/risk implications of funding an escrow, but the on-chain USDC funding mention provides sufficient warning in context.

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 coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds value beyond the schema by connecting capability to search behavior, task_input to execution, and USDC to the on-chain funding step. The schema-level note that only capability, task, and price ceiling are used further reinforces parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then enumerates the full pipeline (search, escrow creation, on-chain funding, execution, result return) and brands itself as 'the one-call bridge,' which clearly differentiates it from step-by-step marketplace siblings like data_session_fund 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 'one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.)' provides clear context for when this tool is the right choice. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, but the single-call framing makes its intended niche 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?

The description states it 'Returns' data, consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and while it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, the annotations already cover the safety profile, so a high score is appropriate.

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, beginning with a clear question and then listing the exact outputs in a structured manner. It contains no superfluous words or repetition, and every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read-only tool, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what information is returned (agents, manifests, checklist, config, and next steps), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality and when to invoke it. No additional context is needed.

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, there is nothing to describe beyond the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific detail because none exist. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description meets that baseline without need for compensation.

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 as checking onboarding status and enumerates specific outputs (registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, testnet config, and actionable next steps). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like register or get_recommended_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 implies usage through the question 'Where am I in onboarding?' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks direct guidance such as 'Use this when you need to review your onboarding status' or any comparison with sibling 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?

The description mentions it is free and needs no wallet, but it does not disclose side effects, what data is persisted, whether an owner key is created, or any auth/session implications. Since annotations do not cover these details, the description carries the burden and falls short.

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 key action, but the emojis and 'call this now' marketing tone reduce clarity slightly. Still, it is compact and scannable.

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 output schema and rich input schema fill in most context, so the description does not need to explain returns. However, it is missing a straightforward statement of what registering produces (e.g., an API key) and how this relates to the onboarding flow.

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 on all 15 optional parameters, so the baseline applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level clarification, and there are no enums or nested objects needing extra explanation.

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 tells the agent to call 'register' and explains the immediate benefit: unlocking purchase tools for pubmedwatch. The verb and resource are specific, though the promotional phrasing ('call this now') and the embedded pubmedwatch example add slight noise.

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 encourages calling the tool but does not explain when it should be used instead of related tools like onboard_start or when it is not appropriate. No explicit conditions or alternatives are given, leaving usage decisions 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the concrete output (address, chain id, RPC, explorer, USDC, ABI summary), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention error cases or external dependencies, but for a read-only verification tool this is acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately lists the deliverable fields. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool returns and does. There is no fluff 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?

Given that there is an output schema (not shown but indicated) and the description enumerates the return values, the tool is fully specified for an agent to invoke correctly. It is a stateless, read-only verification with no parameters, so nothing critical is missing. The description covers the 'what' and the annotations cover safety.

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, and the schema already documents that via an empty properties object. The description reinforces that no arguments are needed ('the owner is derived from the authenticated principal') and lists the expected outputs. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics further.

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 ('Independently verify') and a clear resource ('EscrowVault on-chain'), then enumerates the exact return fields (address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, ABI summary). This is unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_agent_contract, which focus on agent-specific contracts rather than the escrow vault verification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The verb 'Independently verify' implies a verification purpose, but no direct guidance is given about when an agent should prefer this over, say, get_agent_contract or a2awire_guide. Given the sibling list includes several potentially similar read-only tools, this is a gap.

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