AgentsPrice

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

Discloses behavior: returns low price, venue, seller count, savings, link; states prices are never fabricated. No annotations, but description carries full burden well.

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?

Concise: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details. 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?

Covers purpose, usage, categories, API key requirement, and alternative. Output fields listed despite no output schema. Complete for tool 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?

Adds meaning for api_key (explains necessity) and category (lists valid values), but query parameter is not explained (default empty). Schema coverage 0%, but description compensates partially.

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 states the tool finds the lowest price for a product category across real sellers, listing output fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools list_live_deals and reference_price by mentioning alternative for sample.

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 specifies when to use (to find best price) and provides context: needs API key, categories listed, and alternative for no-key sample (list_live_deals).

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, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns a verdict and signed record, denies if over policy, escalates when no market price, and states it's not purchase advice. It doesn't detail rate limits or failure modes, but covers main traits.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the key action, but contains several sentences that could be condensed (e.g., 'Honest scope...'). It is longer than necessary but still 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?

For a complex tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers verdict output, signed record, policy conditions, and dependencies (API key, payment). Missing details on parameter format or error cases, but adequate for understanding.

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%, so description must add meaning. It explains proposed_price, max_over_market_pct, and hard_ceiling via policy text, but does not describe item, api_key, or category. Partial compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a signed allow/deny/escalate verdict by comparing proposed price to market price with policy. It uses specific verb+resource (get a verdict) and distinguishes from siblings like best_price or market_pulse.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Before you SPEND' and describes when deny or escalate occurs. It mentions needing an API key and references get_free_key as an alternative for that. It implicitly advises use when needing a signed receipt, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other price-check 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?

With no annotations, description fully discloses: free, no account/card, key non-recoverable, rate limits (10/min), honesty of prices, signed attestations for certain functions, referral credit conditions, and that key is shown only once.

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?

Description is comprehensive but slightly verbose; however, every sentence adds value and it front-loads the core action. Could be tightened slightly but still effective.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description fully explains what the response contains (api_key, referral code, link), how to use the key, limitations, and upgrade paths. Complete for a key-generation tool.

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

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

Schema has one optional parameter referred_by. Description explains its purpose: passes referral code, credited only if later pay. Also mentions response includes own referral code and link, adding context beyond 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 mints a free AgentsPrice API key, with specific details about the key's usage limits and features. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like best_price, quote, etc., which are about price lookups.

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 guidance: call once then reuse, pass referred_by to credit referrer, upgrade for higher volume. Contrasts with paid plans and x402 for arbitrary search. Tells when not to use (if need higher volume).

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?

Discloses caching behavior (≈10 minutes), data authenticity (only real sourced deals), and access requirement (no API key). No annotations exist, so description fully covers behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with purpose and key attributes. Every phrase adds value, no 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?

Covers main aspects: purpose, data freshness, authenticity, access. Lacks explicit contrast with sibling tools (best_price, reference_price) but still sufficient for a simple tool with no parameters or output 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?

No parameters exist; description adds no parameter info beyond schema, but baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists public live-deals feed with specified categories (electronics, gaming, home, fashion), and highlights it contains only real deals with live buy links. Distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing browsing current deals vs. price lookups.

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 'Use for a quick read of what is genuinely on sale right now.' Specifies no API key required, implying ease of use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives, but context 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?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses traits: free, no API key required, real data never fabricated, richer with more agents. It is transparent about being a read-only aggregate with no destructive 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 concise, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (trending searches, discounts, etc.) and its caveats. It is complete for a simple aggregation tool with no parameters.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a real-time aggregate of agent activity including trending searches, discounts, buy-side wants, and listings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like best_price and list_live_deals by emphasizing the hive-mind pulse nature.

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 usage context: 'Use it to see demand, spot deals, or find what to list.' It doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the context implies when to use effectively.

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 fully covers behavioral traits: it discloses that the lock is not a guarantee of seller/market price, stock, or transaction success. It explains the signed reference, transparency log, and expiration, providing complete transparency.

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 well-structured with the main purpose upfront. It is slightly verbose but remains clear and includes necessary details without excessive 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 no output schema, the description explains the return values (lock_id, signed terms, URLs) and covers expiration, redemption, and authentication. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions the TTL default and the need for api_key, but does not formally describe each parameter. It adds some meaning over the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 freeze a verified price as a stable reference for a window, enabling multi-step plans. It distinguishes itself from siblings like redeem_lock and best_price by specifying its unique role in price locking.

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

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

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (for multi-step plans) and when not (not a guarantee of stock or transaction success). It also provides prerequisites (AgentsPrice API key via get_free_key) and directs to an alternative (redeem_lock) for redeeming.

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, so description carries full burden. It discloses: returns real or honest 'no-info', never fabricated; requires API key or x402 payment; routes to appropriate oracle; fallback behavior. This is comprehensive for a non-destructive tool.

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 dense paragraph that could be better organized with bullet points, but every sentence adds value. The first sentence is a strong front-loaded hook. Slight penalty for lack of structure, but still efficient for its comprehensive 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?

Given no output schema and complex sibling relationships, this description covers all needed aspects: input format, authentication, behavioral honesty, fallback, and when to use alternatives. It leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema has 0% description coverage, so description must explain both parameters. It explains 'query' with real examples ('airpods pro', 'bitcoin') and 'api_key' with authentication details (AgentsPrice API key or x402). Fully compensates for lack of schema descriptions.

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 positions 'quote' as a one-stop best price tool for any raw query, distinguishing it from siblings like reference_price (independently checkable) and best_price (category-based). It specifies the verb (return best price), resource (any query), and output elements (price, venue, sellers, savings, link).

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 tells when to use (any raw query, no category needed) and when not to (use reference_price/verified for verifiable prices). Also provides fallback: if routing fails, returns category list so you can retry with best_price. This clarity helps with tool selection.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses idempotent behavior, public log recording, and the legal nature of the lock ('not a seller guarantee').

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, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value with no 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?

The description covers key behavioral aspects and return ('settlement'), but lacks elaboration on the settlement structure, which is not covered by an output 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?

The single parameter 'lock_id' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its format, origin, or constraints, leaving a 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 'Redeem' and the resource 'active price lock', and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'price_lock' which creates the lock.

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

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

It specifies the context ('within its window', 'one created by price_lock') and notes idempotency, but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools beyond implication.

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?

Fully discloses behavioral traits: returns a signed attestation, may be retractable, never returns demo data as verified, never fabricates. Explains what the signature attests and does not attest, and lists all returned fields.

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?

Relatively verbose at ~200 words with some redundancy, but every sentence adds value. Lacks structure like bullet points but front-loads core purpose.

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?

Covers return fields, authentication, and verification method. Minor gap: max_age_seconds not explained. Overall adequate given no output 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?

Adds meaning to most parameters: explains nonce for binding attestation, purpose and category options, API key requirement. Does not explain max_age_seconds. With 0% schema coverage, description compensates significantly.

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 states the tool returns a signed record of an observed price for independent verification. Distinguishes from siblings like 'best_price' by emphasizing the attestation and non-repudiation aspect.

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 advises using when the price needs to be independently checkable. Provides context on what is not guaranteed (correctness, currency, availability) and mentions retraction checking. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but covers many use-case details.

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?

Since annotations are absent, the description covers behavioral traits: read-only status check, requires API key, explains reward structure (additive, permanent, per conversion). No destructive actions are implied.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides essential details in a logical order. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return values and reward logic. It includes enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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

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

With schema coverage at 0%, the description adds meaning by stating the api_key is needed ("Needs your AgentsPrice API key"). However, it does not explain where to obtain it or its format, leaving some ambiguity.

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 shows referral standing including code, link, signups, conversions, and bonus calls. It distinguishes from siblings like get_free_key and list_live_deals by focusing on status and reward calculation.

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 explains when to use the tool (to check referral standing) and how to share the link and pass the code to get_free_key. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: returns a signed ruling with possible outcomes (upheld/overturned/indeterminate), conditions for 'overturned', and scope limitations (rules only on attestation, not transaction).

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 long paragraph. Informative but could be more concise or broken into sentences. No clear front-loading of key info.

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 adequately covers return type and key behaviors. Parameter descriptions are partial but supplemented by usage context. Sibling tools provide 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains seq and attestation_id as alternatives, and claim_price's role, but lacks detail on api_key. It adds some meaning beyond the schema, but not fully.

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: 'Settle a dispute over a prior AgentsPrice attestation.' It specifies the action (settle) and the resource (attestation), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'price_lock' or 'quote' by positioning it as the neutral clearinghouse.

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 explains what inputs to pass (seq or attestation_id) and notes the need for an API key from get_free_key. It provides context for when to use (dispute resolution) but does not explicitly state when not to use or 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?

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns genuine best price, Ed25519-signed attestation written to transparency log, two public URLs (verify_url, badge_url), and an embed snippet. It honestly states that proofs are only issued for verified prices, never fabricated.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the core value proposition and then detailing outputs and usage. Every sentence adds value, though slight trimming could improve conciseness without losing 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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs, outputs, and trust model. It could mention error handling for unavailable items, but the overall completeness is high for a price verification tool.

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

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by contextualizing the 'item' parameter, mentioning 'api_key' requirement, and listing categories for the 'category' parameter. It could be more explicit about format and defaults, but the added context compensates well.

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 provide a verified best price with a shareable signed proof. It uses specific verbs ('prices an item AND gives you something to SHOW') and distinguishes from siblings like 'best_price' by emphasizing the proof aspect.

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 context for use: 'Use this whenever you surface a price to a person or another agent and want them to trust it WITHOUT trusting you'. It also mentions prerequisites (API key or x402 payment) and categories. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the differentiation from siblings is implied.

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