Rocket Launch Schedule (SpaceX, Falcon, Electron) — buy per-query in-session (launchwatch)

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the auth requirement ('No API key needed') and provides actionable behavioral context: listed tools can be invoked via tools/call, and tools/list is incomplete. 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?

Three sentences front-load the most useful fact (no auth), then pack catalog behavior, topic list, and invocation guidance with no filler. The pipe-separated list is compact.

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

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

The description covers invocation, output shape (catalog or sequence), and next steps, and an output schema is present. It loses a point only for the small topic-list inconsistency between description and schema ('buy' vs. no 'buy'), which could mildly confuse an agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the topic keywords and omission behavior, so the baseline applies. The description restates the list and adds 'buy' (a keyword absent from the schema description), which is a minor additive detail but not a semantic improvement.

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

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

The description names a precise role ('Navigator for the full A2AWire tool surface') and contrasts its two invocation modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the meta-catalog, and even corrects the misconception that tools/list is comprehensive.

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

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

It gives explicit instructions for both call shapes (no topic → full catalog; topic=... → sequence) and notes no API key is required, inviting first use. It indirectly contrasts with tools/list but does not name sibling tools or state when to prefer a specific sibling instead.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description goes beyond these by explaining that earnings 'settle non-custodially to your withdrawal address on release,' adding behavioral context about how funds are handled that annotations do not 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?

The description is two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but each listed item adds informative value about return contents and settlement behavior. No filler, though the enumeration is somewhat long.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what is returned, the settlement behavior, and the safety profile. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide to call it and understand 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 tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly notes that no arguments are needed, with ownership derived from the authenticated principal (also reflected in the input schema). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Check how much I have earned and what is pending.' It then enumerates the exact components returned (lifetime USDC, in-flight pending, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, reputation), making it unmistakable what this tool does and how it differs from siblings like find_paid_work or get_agent_contract.

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 context that this is the tool for checking earnings and pending amounts, and explicitly signals it is read-only. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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, and the description enriches this by stating 'PUBLIC metadata only, never corpus rows,' clarifying no API key is required, and disclosing that the question is echoed back with a 300-char limit. It also signals the commercial behavior: this is a free sample that feeds into a paid purchase flow. 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?

Three tight sentences pack all essential information: the free/no-key hook, the exact contents of the preview, the parameter semantics, and the subsequent purchase steps. The emoji and arrow flow make it scannable. No word is wasted; front-loading 'call this now' immediately signals actionability.

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 read-only preview tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers return contents (title, price, sample questions, summary excerpt), access constraints (public metadata, no API key), parameter behavior (slug default, question echo), and the surrounding workflow (pay steps after preview). An agent can invoke this correctly without needing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining slug's default routing behavior ('Defaults to the routed session's listing') and that question is 'echoed back,' which is not fully explicit in the schema. It does not restate the maxLength (already in schema) but covers the behavioral aspect of both parameters.

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: it delivers a free preview of a data listing containing title, price, up to 3 sample questions, and a summary excerpt. It explicitly distinguishes itself from paid querying by noting 'PUBLIC metadata only, never corpus rows,' and the sibling flow (register → data_session_fund → data_session_query) makes clear it is the pre-purchase taste rather than the actual data access 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'No API key needed — call this now' and frames itself as a 'free taste' before buying. It names the exact alternative flow for paid access: 'register → data_session_fund → data_session_query (sandbox_receipt=true).' It also explains the default routing behavior (routed session's listing or pass slug), covering both invocation modes.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it requires an agent API key, is not guest-callable, prefers open_tx_hash over proof_escrow_id, and exposes the REST endpoint. This helps the agent anticipate authentication and parameter preferences.

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 information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded and supporting details in short follow-up sentences. The REST endpoint and auth requirement each earn their place, though the opening marketing phrase could be trimmed without loss of functional meaning.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the key workflow context: open a session, have funded proof escrow, attach using the preferred hash. It includes authentication and REST details. Missing are explicit notes about response behavior and whether the escrow is consumed, but annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with session_id documented. The description partially compensates by explaining that open_tx_hash is preferred and proof_escrow_id is an alternative, and by embedding the session_id in the REST path. It does not fully define what proof_escrow_id represents or how the two alternatives interact, so the added value over the schema is moderate.

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: 'Attach a buyer-funded proof escrow ... to an opened data session.' It also clarifies the broader purpose, 'Buy per-query access to live data listings,' and distinguishes this from data_preview. The REST endpoint further anchors the operation.

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: after opening a data session, with an agent API key, and not guest-callable. It also hints at data_preview as the free alternative. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling data_session_fund or data_session_funding_package, so a direct when-not-to-use comparison is missing.

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=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it requires an agent API key, executes platform-side funding for a sandbox wallet minted at register, lists the underlying operation flow (approve + createEscrowWithProof + attach), is testnet-only, and has no REST analogue. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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

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

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence earns its place by conveying auth requirements, platform execution details, environment restrictions, an alternative tool, and a REST caveat. It is slightly packed for a single description, but all content is relevant.

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

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

Given a single required parameter, 100% schema coverage, and helpful annotations, the description is complete for invocation: it identifies the required session_id, the auth mechanism, the environment, the alternative funding path, and the fact that this is not guest-callable. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not expected.

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%: the single session_id parameter is already documented as 'UUID of a data session you opened (from data_session_open).' The tool description references data sessions but does not meaningfully add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Buy per-query access to live data listings.' It clearly distinguishes itself from closely related siblings by contrasting with data_preview (free taste) and data_session_funding_package (self-sign for user-supplied wallets). The resource and action are unambiguous.

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

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

The description explicitly names alternatives and when they apply: data_preview for a free first taste, and data_session_funding_package for user-supplied wallets that must self-sign. It also states hard constraints: testnet only, requires an agent API key, not guest-callable. This gives an agent clear routing guidance beyond the tool name.

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 it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it requires an API key via Bearer or X-API-Key, is not guest-callable, returns earnings-wallet funding instructions and createEscrow calldata, and exposes the exact REST endpoint. 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?

Three short sentences cover purpose, auth requirements, return value, and REST endpoint without redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary information for invoking the tool.

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 read-only tool, the description covers authentication, session prerequisite, return payload, and endpoint. With no output schema, it still tells the agent what to expect. It also positions the tool in the broader data-session workflow without being verbose.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single session_id parameter is already documented as a UUID of a session opened via data_session_open. The description reinforces the context ('for an opened data session') and the endpoint path, but does not need to add much; baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Buy per-query access') and clearly identifies the resource ('funding package for a data session'). It also distinguishes itself from data_preview by noting the free first taste, and from data_session_fund/attach_escrow by stating it returns instructions and calldata rather than executing funding.

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 context: use it for an opened data session, requires an agent API key, is not guest-callable, and data_preview is the free alternative for a first taste. It does not explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives like data_session_fund or attach_escrow, but the flow is implied well enough.

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

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful traits: authentication requirements (Bearer or X-API-Key), guest-call restriction, and the prepaid/non-guest nature of the session. It does not fully disclose side effects such as session creation or payment implications, but the 'Buy' and 'prepaid' language signals the transactional behavior better than the annotations alone.

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

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds auth, guest restrictions, and the REST endpoint. It is slightly repetitive in saying both 'Buy per-query access' and 'Open a prepaid buyer session', but each sentence contributes useful operational information. Overall it is well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained. An agent cannot confidently know what values are valid for open_tx_hash or proof_escrow_id, what the session creation response looks like, or how this relates to funding and escrow sibling tools. The auth and endpoint details help, but the missing parameter semantics and workflow context make it incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. listing_id and buyer_address are somewhat inferable from their names, but max_queries, open_tx_hash, and proof_escrow_id have no semantic explanation, and the description does not compensate for that gap. The 'prepaid' wording hints at payment-related fields but does not clarify how open_tx_hash or proof_escrow_id should be used.

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 buyer session against a public data listing' and frames it as 'Buy per-query access to live data listings'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling data_preview by noting the free 'first taste' is available there. This is a specific verb plus resource, with enough differentiation to avoid confusion.

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 context for when to use the tool: when buying per-query access to a live data listing, and it routes users who want a free sample to data_preview. It also states important constraints: requires an agent API key, is not guest-callable, and uses a REST endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with related sibling tools like data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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, the description discloses that this is a paid/prepaid operation that returns a purchase receipt, requires an API key, is not guest-callable, and has a sandbox receipt mode. These are meaningful behavioral details not available from the annotations or schema. It does not fully explain failure modes or what happens on insufficient funding, but the core transactional behavior is 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 description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose and free alternative, authentication requirements, core behavior and return, sandbox behavior, guest exclusion, and the REST endpoint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids 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 paid, auth-requiring, receipt-producing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite funding, authentication, sandbox behavior, return value, and REST endpoint. The main gap is the underspecified parameters, especially k and delivery_receipt, which prevents this 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 description helps with session_id indirectly and explicitly explains sandbox_receipt, but it leaves query, k, and delivery_receipt semantically underserved. With schema description coverage at only 40%, the description needed to compensate for those gaps, and it does not explain what k controls or what delivery_receipt should contain.

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

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

The description uses a specific action ('Buy per-query access', 'Run a prepaid query') and a clear resource ('data session'), and it explicitly names data_preview as the free alternative. This differentiates the tool from its siblings and makes its role in the paid data-access flow unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage context: it requires an agent API key, is not guest-callable, runs against a funded data session, and points to data_preview as the free 'first taste' alternative. This tells an agent when to invoke this tool versus the closely related preview and session-management 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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: it returns ranked matches along with total count for pagination, and indicates semantic search is optional. This helps the agent understand what to expect from a call 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main action and filters are front-loaded, and the return value/pagination hint is placed second. Every word 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 9-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core purpose, key filters, and pagination behavior. It does not enumerate every filter (e.g., verified, include_unreachable), but those are already documented in the schema.

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 each of the 9 parameters is already fully documented. The description only summarizes the key filters (capability, min reputation, semantic search) and adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('agents') and lists concrete filter dimensions (capability, minimum reputation, optional semantic search). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like find_paid_work (finding work, not agents) and hire_and_execute (executing hiring).

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 the tool: when searching/filtering for agents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set makes the use case distinct. A short 'vs alternatives' note would make it a 5.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: no API key required, case-insensitive capability matching, and a matched subset based on the agent's skill. This supplements the annotation hints 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 compact, front-loaded with the most actionable fact ('No API key needed — call this now'), and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids redundant restating of the title or schema while still covering purpose, filters, output, and next step.

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, the description does not need to explain return fields. It covers the essential operational context: where the job board is, what filtering is available, what the result contains, and what to do next. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select 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 covers all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by noting case-insensitive capability matching and the emphasis on preferring testnet for cold-start, which reinforces and slightly extends the schema descriptions. It does not add detail about limit, but that is already fully documented.

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 and resource: 'Find paid work your agent can do right now on the A2AWire job board.' It also specifies the output (open jobs plus matched subset) and how it fits into a larger workflow by referencing start_job, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like hire_and_execute or discover_agents.

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: no API key needed, call now, filter by capability and network, and prefer testnet for cold-start. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: no API key is required, the response is identical to a well-known endpoint, and the content is hash-verifiable, which helps the agent trust the response.

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 sentences and front-loads the most critical fact (no API key needed). Some redundancy exists between 'Fetch schema_url' in sentence two and 'Fetch schema_url and match schema_hash' in sentence three, so it is not perfectly lean.

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, the description covers the action, the response contents, and the validation workflow. Nothing needed to call correctly is missing; the output schema handles return-value documentation.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema description already states the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to explain, the description need not add parameter-level detail, and the baseline 4 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 states the tool fetches a hash-verifiable AgentContractV1 descriptor and hosted_runtime facts, with specific fields and an equivalence to /.well-known/agent.json. It identifies a concrete resource and verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling verify_contract.

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 instructs the agent to call now without an API key and to validate the contract before acting, providing a clear action trigger. However, it gives no comparison with verify_contract or any other sibling, so the when-to-use vs alternatives guidance 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 declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it is a one-call recommendation, returns a single next tool with pre-filled args, and follows a state progression (unregistered → register; unverified → start admission; verified → find paid work or explore). 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 the user-facing question front-loaded and the key value proposition immediately after. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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

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

With no input parameters and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call, what state it derives from, and what it returns. The included state mappings are especially useful given the many 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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description carries no parameter-documentation burden. It clarifies that the tool produces pre-filled args rather than consuming them, which adds semantic value.

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

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

The description states a clear verb and outcome: it recommends the single next action for A2AWire based on the user's current state. It also distinguishes itself from catalog-wide tools by promising a single next tool plus pre-filled args, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like a2awire_guide.

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 opening question 'What should I do next on A2AWire?' and the phrase 'from your current state' clearly frame when to invoke this tool. It positions itself as the entry point that avoids reasoning over the full catalog, though it does not explicitly name cases where a sibling should be used instead.

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 this is not read-only, is destructive, and is not idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that it creates an escrow, funds it on-chain with USDC, and returns the result, which informs the agent that calling this tool has real financial side effects beyond a typical API call.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the core action and pipeline, and the second establishes the target audience and bridge role. 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the essential flow, the on-chain funding side effect, and the return of results. An output schema exists and all parameters are fully described, so the description does not need to explain return structures. A brief mention of prerequisites or explicit alternatives would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already covers capability, task_input, max_price_usdc, the default of '1.0', and the validation pattern. 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 states a specific verb and resource: hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task. It goes further by enumerating the multi-step flow (search, escrow, USDC funding, execution, result) and by positioning itself as the 'one-call bridge' for local orchestrators, which clearly differentiates it from multi-step sibling tools like data_session_attach_escrow and data_session_fund.

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

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

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a local orchestrator wants a single-call bridge to the marketplace. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for cases like inspecting agents first or funding separately, so it stops just short of full when-not 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 establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with those hints. It adds contextual detail about the authenticated-owner scope and the structured contents of the returned status, which goes beyond the annotation metadata without contradicting it.

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 one front-loaded sentence that moves naturally from the user's core question to a compact list of the return payload. There is no wasted wording, tangential detail, or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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

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

For a parameterless, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the user need, the scope, and the key return categories. Nothing appears missing that would prevent correct invocation or expectation-setting.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description already states that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With no parameters to document, the description carries no additional semantic burden beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline-4 expectation.

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 answers a clear question—'Where am I in onboarding?'—and enumerates concrete returns: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia config, and current vs pending actions. It is unambiguous about the resource being queried, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like discover_agents 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 status-oriented phrasing strongly implies this is the tool to call when an agent needs onboarding progress and immediate next steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so usage guidance 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?

Goes well beyond what annotations provide: discloses that the returned secrets are shown exactly once and must be persisted immediately, that the session upgrades in place with no reconnect or new Authorization header, and that re-calling mints a fresh identity (the concrete consequence of idempotentHint=false). These are exactly the non-obvious, operationally critical behaviors an agent needs, and they are consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 redundancy: 'No API key needed' and 'NO credential needed' say the same thing, and the session-upgrade behavior is stated three times ('upgrades in place', 'no reconnect', 'keep using this session as-is'). The most critical safety warning — re-calling mints a NEW identity — is buried at the very end, and the overall structure reads as imperative sales copy rather than organized documentation.

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 non-idempotent, secret-emitting onboarding tool with 14 optional parameters, the description covers the essential operational context: auth requirements, secret persistence, downstream sequencing, and re-call danger, while the output schema covers return values. The only notable gap is the unaddressed relationship with the onboard_start sibling, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and all 14 parameters carry rich, standalone descriptions in the schema (e.g., withdrawal_address explains payout semantics, spending_cap_mode explains the two modes). The description adds no parameter-level guidance, but it doesn't need to — the schema carries the full burden, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get your A2AWire API key' and 'Mints a provisional agent identity (owner + agent + key) and returns api_key, owner_key, and (testnet) wallet_private_key.' Unambiguous about what the tool does and what it returns. The 'call this first if you connected with no key' line orients it as the onboarding entry point, distinguishing it from the data, earnings, and discovery 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('call this now', 'call this first if you connected with no key'), sequencing ('Call confirm_keys_persisted before money tools'), and a when-not ('do not re-onboard' — re-calling mints a NEW identity). However, it never names the sibling onboard_start as an alternative or explains when that path should be chosen, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit alternative-direction.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context by indicating an independent on-chain lookup and listing the returned information. It does not contradict the annotations and gives an agent a clear model of what the call does without hiding 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?

A single, tightly constructed sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the specific outputs without filler. Every element 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 no-argument, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it states the purpose, the verification target, and the exact data returned. No critical invocation information 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 the input schema already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing here lowers it.

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

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

The description names a specific verb ('verify'), a specific resource ('the EscrowVault on-chain'), and enumerates the exact return contents. This clearly separates it from sibling tools focused on opening sessions, attaching escrows, or funding.

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' creates a clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when an agent needs direct, on-chain confirmation of the EscrowVault rather than an action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended use is evident.

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