abundance-apis

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses SSRF-hardened proxy and return of headers+status, but lacks details on limitations (e.g., rate limits, error handling, redirect 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence provides context (keyless trial) but is not essential; overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 simple interface (1 param, no output schema), the description adequately explains input and output. However, it could be more complete by noting limitations like absence of response body or trial constraints.

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% for the single parameter 'url', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema's description provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states it fetches any URL via a CORS proxy and returns response headers and status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like url_metadata which likely fetches metadata.

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 (fetching URLs) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool performs a conversion using ECB rates and is a keyless trial, but it does not disclose potential limitations like rate accuracy, rate limits, or whether it is destructive (though it is read-only). The information is adequate but lacks depth.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and clear.

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

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

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the data source and keyless trial, but it fails to mention what the output looks like (e.g., exchange rate, converted amount). This gap reduces completeness for an agent trying to interpret the response.

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 100% description coverage, with each parameter (from, to, amount) explained. The description adds context about the data source but does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Convert', the resource 'currencies', and specifies the data source 'European Central Bank daily reference rates'. It also indicates it's a keyless trial, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., email_validate, ip_lookup).

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 by mentioning the data source and that it's a keyless trial, which implies limited usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide conditions for not using it (e.g., for real-time rates).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the validation checks performed and mentions 'keyless trial', implying possible limitations. However, it does not describe the response format, error handling, rate limits, or whether it is read-only (though 'validate' suggests so). Adequate but lacking detail.

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, concise and front-loaded with the action. No filler or redundant text; every sentence provides 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and validation details. However, it fails to describe the output structure or error behavior, which is needed since no output schema exists. Adequate but 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'email' parameter. The tool description adds context about what validation is performed but does not enhance semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Validate an email address') and specifies the resource (email). It lists multiple validation aspects (syntax, MX records, disposable/role detection, typo suggestions) and mentions it's a keyless trial, distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover different domains.

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 use when email validation is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives. Sibling tools are unrelated, so context alone is sufficient, but explicit usage notes are 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return fields and the 'keyless trial' nature, suggesting potential limitations. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits, or permissions, which would be helpful for a trial API.

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: first states purpose and outputs, second adds contextual caveat. No filler or redundant information.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description lists all expected return fields. For a single-parameter tool with simple output, this is complete. The 'keyless trial' note adds important usage 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 description adds 'IPv4/IPv6' to the parameter context, which is not in the schema description. This clarifies acceptable input beyond the schema's generic 'The IP address to look up.'

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 (Geolocate) and the resource (IPv4/IPv6 address) with specific output fields (country, city, coordinates, timezone). No sibling tool provides geolocation, so it stands out.

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 via 'Keyless trial' but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use. No alternative tools for the same task exist among siblings, so guidance is minimal but adequate.

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

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

No annotations provided, but the description accurately describes the read-only listing behavior without contradictions. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the operation is straightforward.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return fields and the tool's role in the workflow, making it complete.

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

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

Tool has no parameters, so description need not add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the trivially 100% schema coverage covers all.

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 it lists the full Abundance APIs catalog with specific details (description, category, OpenAPI spec URL, etc.) and instructs to call it first, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform specific 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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first to discover what is available and how to get production access,' providing clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. It only hints at being a 'trial' without specifics. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand side effects.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and contains no redundant or vague words. 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?

Although no output schema exists, the description details the return values (ranked codes, rating, hierarchy, activities). It also mentions the API and trial nature. For a simple matching tool, this is nearly complete, but it lacks information on potential errors or input constraints beyond character limits.

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% for both parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema beyond clarifying 'plain-English company description'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'match' and the resource: company description to 2022 NAICS industry codes. It also specifies the return values (ranked codes, rating, hierarchy, activities). No ambiguity with sibling tools as they are unrelated.

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 mentions 'Keyless trial', implying a usage condition, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear for the intended domain but lacks guidance on selection among 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'server-side' and 'Keyless trial', hinting at usage restrictions and potentially limited functionality, but does not disclose behavior like auth requirements, rate limits, error cases, or whether it is read-only.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no redundant words, and front-loads the key action and result. Every word 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the output type (metadata fields) and the server-side execution. Minor gaps include not mentioning potential errors or data format, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters (1 param 'url') with a basic description. The tool description adds value by specifying the kind of metadata retrieved (Open Graph / Twitter card), which enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's 'page URL to inspect'.

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 Open Graph and Twitter card metadata from a URL, specifying the exact resource (metadata) and action (fetch server-side). It distinguishes from siblings like cors_fetch or email_validate which serve different purposes.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites, rate limits, or when not to use it. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen over other tools like cors_fetch.

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