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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose material operational traits: data provenance (official public data), freshness (refreshed daily), and commercial cost ($0.08 USDC per call paid with x402) — the cost/payment detail is genuinely useful for agent invocation. It omits any statement of what a result looks like (hit vs. clear) or latency, which keeps it from a 5.

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: purpose and trigger first, then the data sources, then cost/freshness. The trigger and scope are front-loaded and no sentence is 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 read-only lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies scope, sources, freshness, and price — enough to invoke it confidently. It leaves the response shape (matching fields, risk verdict) unspecified, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to cover it.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'nom' (legal or brand name) and 'site' (website or domain) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail for these inputs, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Counterparty check before paying a platform or crypto provider') and enumerates exactly which datasets are consulted (AMF blacklists, ESMA MiCA register, EU/UN/OFAC sanctions). This differentiates it from siblings like agora_company_search (general lookup) and agora_supplier_audit (broader audit).

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?

Gives a clear trigger context: run it before paying a platform or crypto provider. That is a concrete when-to-use. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state exclusions (e.g., what to use instead for non-payment due diligence), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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