Apiosk MCP

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing wallets are overwritten), required permissions, or failure modes. The 'create' vs 'import' modes are mentioned but not elaborated.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure or bullet points for 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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, idempotency, parameter behavior, and error cases. The tool would be hard to use correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'secret' has a description). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. It fails to explain the 'mode' enum, 'daily_limit_usdc', or 'per_tx_limit_usdc' 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 clearly states the verb ('Create or import') and the resource ('managed Apiosk wallet'), and also specifies the scope ('for the signed-in user'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like apiosk_create_wallet_api_key and apiosk_list_wallets by focusing on wallet creation/import.

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 like apiosk_create_wallet_api_key or apiosk_update_wallet. The description does not indicate prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusivity conditions.

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 must carry full burden. Only states 'create', but no details on side effects (e.g., revoke existing keys), authentication needs, or error states. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, very concise. However, underspecified content makes it less valuable. Structure is fine but lacks substance.

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?

Complex tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations. Description is far too minimal to guide an agent on correct invocation, return values, or error handling.

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 5 parameters with only 20% description coverage (private_key only). Description adds no explanation for name, wallet_id, expiration_days, or revoke_existing. Agent must infer meaning from names alone.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Create a new API key / connect token for a managed wallet'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like apiosk_list_wallet_api_keys (list) and apiosk_delete_wallet_api_key (delete).

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 on when to use or when not to use. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The description is purely declarative.

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 convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool rotates or creates a connect token, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether revoke_existing invalidates old tokens), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence conveys the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded with action and outcome. No unnecessary words or 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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what a connect token is, how rotation works, the role of revoke_existing, or the impact of token_name. The tool's complexity demands more detail for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema has 25% description coverage (only private_key has a description). The description adds no meaning to parameters like wallet_id, token_name, or revoke_existing. It does not explain how parameters relate to the 'rotate or create' action, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 ('Rotate or create'), resource ('connect token for a managed wallet'), and output ('return the new connect string'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'apiosk_create_wallet' and 'apiosk_create_wallet_api_key' 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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where rotation is preferred over creation, or when to avoid usage. Sibling tools exist (e.g., apiosk_update_wallet, apiosk_list_wallet_api_keys) but no cross-references 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?

The description implies a destructive action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, impact on associated data, authentication requirements, or error conditions. Given no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 (one sentence, 8 words) and front-loaded, but it lacks necessary details for safe usage. It is appropriately short but at the expense of completeness.

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 one-parameter delete operation and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention wallet ID specifics, confirmation steps, or post-deletion state, leaving gaps for an AI 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?

The only parameter 'wallet_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what it represents or how to obtain it. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 'Delete one of the signed-in user's wallets,' using a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('wallets'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'apiosk_delete_wallet_api_key' which deletes an API key, not a wallet.

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 (e.g., update or list wallets), prerequisites, or side effects. The description only states the action without any usage context.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'permanently' indicating destructive action, but omits details on authorizations, rate limits, side effects, or confirmation steps. A more comprehensive description is needed for a mutation 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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 destructive operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the relationship between the parameters or provide any fallback/error context, making it incomplete for safe agent 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters ('key_id', 'wallet_id'). An AI agent receives no guidance on how to obtain these IDs or their format, which is a critical 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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('existing managed wallet API key'), and adds 'permanently' to convey irreversibility. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like apiosk_create_wallet_api_key or apiosk_list_wallet_api_keys.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites (e.g., wallet must exist, key must be managed) mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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 indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'through the uniform /execute contract', providing some context about how the API is accessed, but does not expand on effects, auth, or error behavior.

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

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

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Excellent conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema), the description is extremely brief. It does not explain the execute envelope, expected output format, or how to construct inputs for the generic contract. Lacks sufficient detail for agents to use effectively.

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 each parameter is already clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'any Apiosk API by slug', distinguishing itself from sibling tools that target specific APIs (e.g., apiosk_create_wallet).

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 on when to use this tool versus the many specific Apiosk sibling tools. It does not suggest alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'browse' and 'explore' context, confirming a read operation, but no further behavioral details like pagination or auth are provided. Since annotations cover the main concerns, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The single-sentence description is very concise with no wasted words. However, it could be more structured or detailed without losing conciseness. It is efficient but slightly vague.

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 six optional parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too brief. It lacks information about what listing groups are, how parameters affect results, and what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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 low (17%), and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (sort, limit, order, offset, search, listing_type). The description adds no value to parameter understanding beyond the schema enums and types.

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 is for browsing Apiosk listing groups and exploring one group at a time before narrowing with search. It distinguishes the exploratory, broad purpose from search-centric tools like apiosk_search, but does not define what 'listing groups' are.

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 using this tool for broad exploration before narrowing with search, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other sibling tools beyond the search 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns 'full listing detail and agent metadata', which provides behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value with 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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete but lacks details on what exactly constitutes 'full listing detail' and 'agent metadata'. This may leave the agent uncertain about the response structure.

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 'slug' parameter. The description additionally provides an example value ('agent-json-diff'), which adds practical meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full listing detail and agent metadata for a specific Apiosk API slug'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like apiosk_search or apiosk_explore, 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?

The description implies usage when you have a specific slug but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. This leaves some ambiguity for an AI 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states that the tool fetches activity, which is a read operation, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive. The description provides insufficient 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 a single short sentence that is clear and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words and directly conveys the tool's 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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for a tool that has 3 parameters and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'page', 'limit', or 'wallet_id' beyond what the schema provides. The description fails to compensate for the 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 states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'recent transactions and activity', and the scope 'one managed wallet'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like apiosk_list_wallets (which lists wallets) and apiosk_create_wallet (which creates wallets).

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 the usage context (fetching activity for a specific wallet) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The guidance is minimal.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying that it reports status and base URL, which is a non-destructive read. No contradictions.

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?

One sentence, perfectly front-loaded with no extraneous words. 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 health check tool without an output schema, the description adequately states what is reported. Could optionally detail status format, but sufficient.

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

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

There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by clarifying what the output contains (status and base URL) beyond the empty 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 uses specific verb 'Report' and specifies resources 'Apiosk MCP runtime status' and 'configured gateway base URL'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are focused on CRUD, execution, or exploration.

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 usage is implied by the name and description: to check server health and base URL. No explicit when-not or alternatives are provided, but given the context, it 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that this is purely explanatory, covering specific areas like payments and workflow. It does not contradict annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, long sentence with many concepts. While it packs information, it could be more concise or broken into bullet points for better scannability.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope. It lists all relevant topics, making it complete for a help 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting the default topic and specifically advising 'Use 'rails' to learn how settlement works across USDC and credits.' This helps agents understand param utility.

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 explains 'what Apiosk MCP is, how to connect it, how auth and x402 payments work, the settlement rails, and the recommended workflow.' This is a specific verb ('explain') on a resource ('Apiosk MCP'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions like creating wallets or searching.

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: when an agent needs explanations about Apiosk MCP concepts. It lists broad topics, but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives. However, given sibling tools are functional, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects or permissions needed. The short description only states the action without behavioral details.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. However, it could include a bit more information (e.g., return format) without sacrificing conciseness.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It does not specify the return type or any pagination, which would be useful for a list operation. Without output schema, the description should provide at least a hint about the output.

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 one required parameter 'wallet_id' with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain what wallet_id is, its format, or how to obtain it. The parameter name and context provide minimal semantic meaning, but the description fails to add value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'API keys / connect tokens' with context 'for a managed wallet'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like apiosk_create_wallet_api_key and apiosk_list_wallets.

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 (to list keys for a wallet) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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 authorization requirements, but with no annotations, it lacks details on error handling, pagination, or scope of wallets listed (only managed by the user).

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, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and specifying the prerequisite. No fluff.

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 list tool with no parameters or output schema, the description covers purpose and authorization. Could mention return format or pagination but not essential.

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, and the description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'the signed-in user's managed Apiosk wallets', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, delete, or update wallets.

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 states the prerequisite of an Apiosk dashboard session, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like apiosk_get_wallet_activity or apiosk_list_wallet_api_keys.

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 provide no hints; description adds minimal behavioral info (cost per call, default operation) but fails to disclose what the tool actually does or its side effects. 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?

Description is moderately concise but lacks focus. Includes cost and default operation but is not efficiently structured for quick comprehension. Could be more precise.

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 open schema and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It omits return value, expected input structure, and how this tool relates to other tools, hindering proper selection and invocation.

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

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

Schema has 0 defined parameters with additionalProperties: true, implying arbitrary inputs. Description does not explain what parameters are expected or how to structure them, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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 is vague, stating it executes API through Apiosk's uniform contract but not specifying what specific action it performs or how it differs from sibling tools like apiosk_help or apiosk_execute.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings. Mentions default operation as apiosk_help but does not clarify when to invoke this generic tool instead of the specific helper.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authentication requirements), but does not contradict annotations. A score of 3 is appropriate as it neither harms nor significantly helps beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every word is necessary, with no superfluous content. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, a brief note on the type of data returned would improve completeness. The current description still adequately conveys the tool's function.

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 the single parameter 'slug', and the description's mention of 'Apiosk API slug' aligns with the schema. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Fetch') and the resource ('full listing detail and agent metadata for a specific Apiosk API slug'), making the purpose easy to understand. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes 'full listing detail' and 'agent metadata', slightly reducing clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'apiosk_get_api' or 'apiosk_explore'. It lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of 'explain', 'returns a guide' is consistent. The description adds behavioral context: it tailors guidance to the current auth, and scopes buyer guidance with slug. No contradiction.

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. The first sentence states the purpose and what it returns. The second clarifies parameter usage. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return format. It says 'Returns a buyer guide... and a provider guide' but does not specify the structure (e.g., text, JSON, markdown) or contents beyond 'how to pay'. This is adequate for a guide tool but could be more explicit.

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 description does not add significant meaning beyond what is already in the schema. It slightly elaborates on slug with 'price, payment steps', but this is minimal. 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 starts with 'Explain how to pay through the Apiosk gateway', which is a specific verb (explain) and resource (payment guide). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like apiosk_execute (which executes payments) and apiosk_help (which is generic help).

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 says 'Returns a buyer guide... and a provider guide' and explains when to use the optional parameters (role, slug). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when to use apiosk_execute instead) or provide alternative 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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context of searching by capability/price/category, but doesn't elaborate on pagination, sorting behavior, rate limits, or result format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value.

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, 22 words, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage guidance. No 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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality. It could mention pagination/sorting behaviors, but the schema already defines those. The read-only nature is clear from annotations.

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 all 6 parameters are described. The description mentions 'by capability, price, or category' which maps to search and category, but adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool is for searching and browsing the Apiosk catalog, and mentions filtering by capability, price, or category. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apiosk_get_api (individual API) and apiosk_explore.

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?

Explicit guidance to 'Use this first when you need to find APIs by capability, price, or category.' It doesn't specify when not to use it or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.

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, and description only says 'Update' without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or consequences (e.g., revoking wallet).

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?

Single sentence is concise but omits essential details. Not a model of conciseness when balanced against completeness.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for understanding behavior, return values, or required 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 coverage is 0%, and description only groups parameters vaguely ('display metadata' for icon/color). Does not explain each parameter's purpose or constraints.

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 updates wallet attributes like label, status, display metadata (icon, color), and spending limits. It distinguishes from siblings such as create_wallet and delete_wallet.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_wallet or delete_wallet. Missing context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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 must fully disclose behavior. It only lists three operations but lacks details on side effects (e.g., does revoke invalidate immediately?), response format, or what happens when multiple actions are combined.

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?

Single sentence with all essential actions listed, front-loaded. No wasted words, though a structured list could improve readability.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits important details like default behavior, interaction between parameters, return value, and error conditions.

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 compensate. The description maps three actions to parameters: name (rename), revoke (revoke), expiration_days (extend). However, it does not explain key_id and wallet_id beyond their likely purpose, nor does it clarify behavior when conflicting parameters are set.

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 actions (rename, revoke, or extend) on a specific resource (existing managed wallet API key). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, list by specifying the manipulation of existing keys.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to rename vs revoke vs extend, or when to use this instead of creating or deleting keys.

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 provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description must compensate. It mentions cost per call and default operation, but does not disclose key behaviors like whether transcription is synchronous or asynchronous, what happens on invalid input, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 at two sentences plus meta info (cost, slug). It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, with no redundant or filler content. Every element serves a 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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a transcript object with text, timestamps). It also lacks error handling or usage examples. For a creation tool, this is 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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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 it performs 'Speech-to-text transcription via AssemblyAI', providing a specific verb (transcribe) and resource (audio). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools, which are mostly Apiosk management or other APIs.

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 for speech-to-text needs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. However, since no sibling tool offers transcription, the differentiation is clear by context.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is clear. The description adds cost per call ($0.06) and the Apiosk execution contract, but does not discuss rate limits, data freshness, authentication requirements, or any side effects beyond what annotations 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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: data types, slug, cost, default operation, and execution mechanism. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical details.

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 has 4 flexible parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool for specific data types. It does not list available operations, parameter formats, or expected responses. The agent needs more context to select the right operation and structure input effectively.

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%, but parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., 'JSON payload forwarded to the selected operation'). The description hints that 'default operation: news' and 'apiosk slug: finnhub' provide some context, but it fails to explain available operation values, how to structure input for stock quotes vs. earnings, or provide examples. The parameter semantics are minimally extended.

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 'real-time stock quotes, company fundamentals, news, earnings, analyst ratings and insider data from Finnhub', making the data domain explicit. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', which slightly reduces clarity. Among siblings like ipdata or assemblyai, it distinguishes itself as a financial data source.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'default operation: news' but does not explain how to select other operations or compare to other data tools (e.g., weatherapi for weather). The description omits any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it uses Apiosk's /execute contract and costs $0.09 per call, which is useful but doesn't elaborate on behavioral aspects like rate limits, response format, or error handling.

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 very concise with three short sentences, no fluff. The core purpose is in the first sentence. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage from cost), but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain return values. With four optional parameters, a minimal example or usage hint is missing. The tool's integration with Apiosk is mentioned but not enough for an agent to construct a correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'Default operation: lookup' but does not add any further meaning to the four parameters (input, query, operation, path_params). No enrichment beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool does 'IP geolocation + threat intelligence lookup', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from the more generic apiosk_execute sibling by naming the specific API (ipdata), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling ipgeolocation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ipgeolocation or other geolocation tools. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or context for 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the default operation 'ipgeo' and mentions the Apiosk execution contract, but lacks details on error handling, response format, or side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 very concise with three sentences, all front-loaded with key information. No filler or redundancy.

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

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

There is no output schema, and the description only vaguely hints at output ('IP geolocation with optional security data'). The input parameter descriptions are generic and not specific to this tool, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper invocation.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond the default operation; it remains generic.

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 performs IP geolocation with optional security data, specifying the Apiosk slug and default operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'ipdata' which also does IP geolocation.

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 cost per call but does not give guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ipdata. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements are present.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. Description adds cost per call ($0.06) and default operation ('tile'), which are useful but not deep behavioral context. No contradictions 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?

Description is concise with 4 sentences covering purpose, slug, cost, and default operation. Some details (slug, cost) are administrative but not overly verbose.

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 high schema coverage and annotations, the description omits critical context: what operations are available (only 'tile'?), how to invoke geocoding vs directions, and expected input format. No output schema to compensate.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Description clearly states 'Geocoding and directions from Mapbox', specifying the tool's purpose as a Mapbox API wrapper. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are other APIs like assemblyai or finnhub, but lacks differentiation among Mapbox-specific operations.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ipgeolocation for geocoding). Does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use 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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds only marginal value by mentioning cost per call, default operation, and execution contract. It does not contradict annotations.

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

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

The description is three sentences, front-loading the purpose and including essential extras like cost and default operation without wasted words.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and presence of a sibling weather API, the description lacks details about the return format and how to structure inputs for different operations, but the schema compensates somewhat.

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 with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond noting the default operation, which provides minimal extra 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 clearly states that the tool provides current weather, forecast, and One Call data from OpenWeather, identifying the specific resource and action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling weather tools like weatherapi, though the name makes it clear.

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 includes a default operation but gives no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as the weatherapi tool, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds cost per call ($0.11) and the Apiosk execution contract, providing some additional behavioral context beyond 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 with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes distinct information: purpose, cost/slug, and execution contract.

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?

No output schema is provided. The description mentions 'Google search results' but does not detail the output format, pagination, or error handling. For a simple search tool with 4 optional parameters, this is adequate but leaves gaps for 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds the default operation value ('search'), which is not present in the schema, enriching parameter semantics.

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 'Google search results via the Serper API', specifying the verb (search) and resource (Google results). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools, as no other sibling provides Google search.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions default operation but does not provide context for when to choose this tool over other search-like APIs or what problems it solves.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds cost per call and default operation, but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

The description is short but front-loads generic provider information ('Provider of APIs Apiosk slug:') rather than summarizing the tool's core function. It could be more concise and 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 the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns and when it is appropriate to use. It lacks this context, relying solely on schema and annotations.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (e.g., usage patterns, relationships). 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 states it is a provider for a shipment API and mentions a default operation ('shipments/options'), but it does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., obtaining shipping rates or options). The purpose is vague and lacks a clear verb-resource combination.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., finnhub, twilio). There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions.

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

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

The description claims to 'Send SMS', implying a write operation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, so the description misleads about behavioral characteristics.

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 but includes extraneous details like cost and Apiosk slug. It front-loads the core purpose, making it efficient for quick reading.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a complex underlying API (Twilio), the description lacks detail on return values, pagination, error handling, and operation specifics beyond the default.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Send SMS and list messages via Twilio Programmable Messaging', which specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (other APIs and Apiosk admin tools) by its Twilio focus.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The default operation is mentioned, but there is no comparison to siblings like apiosk_execute or other API 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true. Description adds cost ($0.105) and execution model (Apiosk contract), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Four concise sentences with key info front-loaded (purpose, cost, default). Some non-essential details (slug) but overall efficient. 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?

Despite no output schema, description does not hint at return format (e.g., current conditions, forecast details). Parameter usage is unexplained beyond operation. Leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer expected 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description only adds 'Default operation: current' for the operation parameter, but no extra meaning for input, query, or path_params. Minimal value added.

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 'Current and forecast weather from WeatherAPI.com', specifying the verb (fetch) and resource (weather data). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the specific provider, though it lacks details on the scope of weather data.

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 on when to use this tool versus other weather APIs (e.g., openweather). Mentions 'Default operation: current' but does not explain how to switch or when forecast is appropriate. No exclusion criteria.

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