Pay-per-call government data over x402: provenance chains, Ed25519 attestations, no API keys.
Glama couldn't complete the latest health check. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
Scored across 117 tools
Roughly 100 auto_*_lookup tools all perform the same one-record-by-identifier operation and differ only by long, truncated dataset names, making misselection likely. Several names, such as the weekly COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women variants, are nearly indistinguishable despite pointing at different datasets.
The auto_*_lookup subset is internally consistent, but the rest of the server mixes lookup, summary, series, monthly, status, and descriptive noun-phrase names with no uniform verb pattern. Names are readable and snake_case, but the overall convention is too inconsistent for a 117-tool surface.
117 tools is an extreme count for a server whose core operation is mostly identical single-record lookups over government datasets. The apparent scope does not justify this explosion; it creates massive selection overhead and buries the genuinely distinct data domains.
The server provides broad read-only dataset coverage, but nearly every tool is a lookup-by-identifier with no general dataset search, metadata catalog, list operation, or query-by-criteria capability. Agents are left with dead ends when they need to discover datasets or explore records without knowing an exact identifier.
EPA AirNow observations aggregated into AQI categories across the reporting area, with site counts per category. $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the cost per call ($0.005 via x402), the payment method (USDC on Base), and that the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It also mentions the free quote flow when payment is omitted. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or describe error handling, which would be useful for an unannotated 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 two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by cost and response details. Every piece of information is relevant and well-ordered.
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 covers the payment flow and response extras but does not describe the actual data shape (e.g., the list of AQI categories and counts). An agent can infer the likely output but it is not explicit. The provenance and attestation are mentioned, but the core payload is undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers 100% of the parameter (payment), explaining its purpose and the behavior when omitted. The tool description does not add any extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific verb 'aggregated' with a clear resource 'EPA AirNow observations' and the output 'AQI categories across the reporting area, with site counts per category.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aqi_site_lookup, which likely provides site-level data rather than aggregated summaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for site-level data one should use aqi_site_lookup, nor does it indicate any conditions or prerequisites. An agent is left without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current EPA AirNow air-quality observation for one monitoring site: AQI value, category and reporting parameter. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses cost, payment mechanism, and that the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention data freshness, error handling, or authentication requirements beyond payment.
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, two sentences, and directly conveys the core function, output, cost, and response features without 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?
The description covers the output fields and response features but omits essential context such as how to obtain the `id` parameter, potential error conditions, or the relationship to sibling tools. It is moderately complete for a simple lookup tool but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters; `id` has no description and the tool description doesn't clarify what the id represents. The `payment` parameter is described in the schema, but the tool description only mentions payment generally without detailing how the parameter works. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description fails to compensate.
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 current EPA AirNow air-quality observation for a single monitoring site, specifying the AQI value, category, and reporting parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aqi_category_summary by emphasizing the single-site scope.
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 like aqi_category_summary. The description mentions cost and payment via x402 but does not provide selection criteria or context for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
2020-2021 Nationwide Blood Donor Seroprevalence Survey Combined Infection- and Vaccination-Induced Seroprevalence Estimates (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose that calls cost $0.01 via x402 and that responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it does not describe what happens for invalid or missing identifiers, whether the full survey record is returned, or any rate limits or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loads the dataset and lookup behavior, but it repeats the provenance-and-attestation phrase twice in consecutive sentences. This redundancy weakens the structure without adding information, so it does not fully maximize the limited description space.
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 two-parameter lookup, the description conveys the dataset, the identifier-based access, and the payment/attestation behavior. Yet with no output schema and no annotations, it should more clearly state what data fields are returned and what an id value actually looks like. The absence of any instructions about where identifiers come from is a notable gap.
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 50%: the payment parameter is well documented in the schema, and the prose adds meaning to the id parameter by calling it the record's identifier. However, the description does not clarify the expected id format, source, or how a caller would obtain it, leaving some ambiguity for a 50%-covered 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 identifies the resource (CDC 2020-2021 Nationwide Blood Donor Seroprevalence Survey) and the function ('one record by its identifier'), so an agent can distinguish this from other lookup tools by dataset. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'look up', and does not differentiate itself from sibling lookups through comparison.
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 tool is appropriate when a caller has a specific identifier for one CDC survey record, and the payment parameter description says omitting payment returns a free quote. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative lookups or searches, nor does it mention exclusions such as aggregate or filtered queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH County of Residence COVID-19 Deaths Counts, 2020 Provisional (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses meaningful operational traits: exact one-record lookup, $0.01 cost via x402, provenance chain, and Ed25519 attestation on every response. These go well beyond the schema, though it omits details like error behavior or data availability caveats.
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 sentence with useful information front-loaded, but it redundantly mentions the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation twice. The repetition wastes space without adding new meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-record lookup, the description covers the core purpose, source, cost, and response highlights. However, with no output schema or annotations, it leaves out what the record contents look like and how to locate the id, so it is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only documents the payment parameter; the required id parameter is just a maxLength string. The description adds that the id is the record identifier, which clarifies its role, but it does not provide examples, formats, or how to discover valid identifiers. This only partially compensates for the 50% schema 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 the tool returns one record by its identifier from a specific CDC dataset (county-of-residence COVID-19 deaths, 2020 provisional). The verb and resource are explicit, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many similarly named auto_*_lookup sibling tools.
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 vs. alternatives. The name suggests a lookup, but the description gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or mention of when a different lookup would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH Cumulative Provisional COVID-19 Death Counts by Place of Death and Age Group from 2/1/2020 to 7/18/2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and meaningfully discloses the $0.01 per-call cost, x402 payment flow, and the provenance chain plus Ed25519 attestation on every response. It does not cover not-found or error behavior, but for a simple identifier lookup the key operational traits are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with dataset, date range, and lookup semantics. However, 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' is stated twice, which is redundant and slightly dilutes the structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-record lookup with one required parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the data source, time range, cost, payment requirements, and response attestation. It could be more complete by noting error behavior or how to source the identifier, but these are minor for this tool type.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'id' parameter by explaining it selects 'one record by its identifier,' while the schema already documents 'payment' well. Still, it does not explain where identifiers come from or how to format them, so the 50% schema-description gap is only partially compensated.
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 returns 'one record by its identifier' from a named CDC dataset with a specific date range. This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools by the unique dataset and identifier-based access, though it does not explicitly contrast with search-style siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context: use this when you have the record identifier, and it advises omitting the payment parameter to receive a free quote. It does not explicitly describe when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for broader queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH Cumulative Provisional Death Counts by Sex, Race, and Age from 1/1/2020 to 7/4/2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses payment ($0.01 per call via x402) and response includes provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it doesn't mention read-only nature, error cases, or rate limits. It's partially transparent but not comprehensive.
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 relatively concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the dataset purpose. However, it repeats the provenance/attestation detail twice, which is redundant. Overall it's efficient but could be tighter.
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 lookup with one required parameter, the description covers payment and response meta, but it doesn't explain how to obtain the id or what the actual data record contains beyond the dataset title. With no output schema, more detail on the returned record would help, but the tool's simplicity keeps it borderline adequate.
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 50% (only payment described). The id parameter has no schema description, and the description only says 'identifier' without explaining its format or origin. Payment is described in the schema. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the undocumented id.
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 retrieves one record by identifier from a specific CDC dataset, and the name includes the dataset details (sex, race, age, date range). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the exact dataset, though it doesn't use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'lookup' beyond the tool name.
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 the many sibling lookup tools. It implies usage for this specific dataset but doesn't state exclusions or alternatives. An agent cannot determine when to pick this over similar auto_*_lookup tools without extra inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH Monthly Provisional Counts of Deaths by Age Group and HHS region for Select Causes of Death, 2019-2021 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, though it is implied by the lookup nature.
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 sentence that front-loads the dataset name and then clarifies the action and response features. It is efficient without unnecessary words, though the semicolon makes it slightly run-on. Overall, it is concise and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one required parameter and an optional payment parameter, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the response includes provenance and attestation, and the cost. The absence of an output schema is acceptable, and the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that the 'id' parameter is the record identifier, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and maxLength. The 'payment' parameter is already described in the schema (encoded x402 header), so the description's coverage is adequate. It compensates for the missing id description in 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 that the tool retrieves a single record by its identifier from a specific CDC dataset (AH Monthly Provisional Counts of Deaths by Age Group and HHS region for Select Causes of Death, 2019-2021). This verb-object-resource specification is precise and distinguishes it from other sibling lookup tools.
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 fetching records from this dataset but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The cost and payment requirement are mentioned, but no guidance on choosing this tool versus other similar lookups is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH Monthly Provisional Counts of Deaths for Select Causes of Death by Sex, Age, and Race and Hispanic Origin (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost ($0.01 via x402 USDC on Base) and that responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it does not describe error behavior, whether the id must be exact, or any side effects (though this is a read operation). It covers the key transactional details but omits potential edge-case 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 a single sentence that front-loads the dataset name and purpose, then adds cost and response details. However, it repeats 'with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response' twice, which is redundant and slightly bloats the text. It could be trimmed without losing 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 simple lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential details: the action (fetch by id), the cost, and the response characteristics. It does not describe the record structure or error conditions, but these are likely implied by the dataset context. It is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly, though not exhaustive.
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 50% (payment is documented, id is not). The description adds that the id is the record identifier, which provides some meaning beyond the bare schema. It does not explain id format or constraints. Payment is already documented in the schema. The description's contribution is minimal but not absent.
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 retrieves one record by its identifier from a specific, named CDC dataset (AH Monthly Provisional Counts of Deaths for Select Causes...). This distinguishes it from the many sibling lookup tools, each of which targets a different dataset. The verb and resource are explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The dataset name is given, so an agent can infer when to use this tool: when it needs a record from that exact dataset. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the naming convention and unique dataset make the context clear. No conflicting guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH Provisional Cancer Death Counts by Month and Year, 2020-2021 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful operational traits: x402 payment at $0.01 per call, a provenance chain, and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. However, it does not mention error behavior, identifier format requirements, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation.
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 reasonably short and front-loaded with the dataset and operation, but it repeats the phrase 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' verbatim in both sentences, which is unnecessary duplication.
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 two-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the dataset, the record-by-identifier behavior, the payment mechanism, and the response's provenance/attestation. It does not describe the record fields or error cases, but the low complexity and public dataset context make the description mostly 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?
Schema description coverage is 50%: the payment parameter is documented in the schema, while the id parameter is not. The description adds that id is 'the identifier from the agency's published dataset', which gives basic meaning, but it does not describe the identifier format or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific dataset ('AH Provisional Cancer Death Counts by Month and Year, 2020-2021'), the source agency, and the operation ('one record by its identifier'). It is clearly a lookup tool, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'look up' in the description itself, relying partly on the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a single record from this specific CDC cancer death counts dataset is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many similar sibling lookup tools, nor any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Age, United States, Week 40 2020 through Week 39 2021 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and mentions the $0.01 cost via x402. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond a simple lookup. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the lookup nature implies it. It also doesn't mention rate limits or auth requirements beyond payment, but the disclosed elements add 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?
The description is a single long sentence that packs in the dataset, action, provenance, attestation, and cost. However, it redundantly mentions 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice, which is unnecessary repetition. The structure is front-loaded with the action and dataset, but the redundancy reduces 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?
For a simple lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: it retrieves a record, includes provenance and attestation, and explains the payment mechanism. It does not detail the record structure, but that is not necessary for a known dataset lookup. The tool is adequately specified for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 50% (payment has a description, id does not). The description indirectly clarifies the id parameter by stating 'one record by its identifier,' but it adds no further detail about format or constraints beyond the schema's maxLength. It does not compensate for the missing id description in the schema, but the context makes it self-evident.
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 retrieves 'one record by its identifier' from a specific CDC dataset, naming the dataset explicitly. This distinguishes it from the many sibling lookup tools, each for different datasets.
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 an identifier for that dataset ('one record by its identifier'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance about searching vs. looking up a known ID, though the tool name and description make the dataset-specific nature clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH Provisional COVID-19 Deaths By Race, Age, and Sex from 3/1/2020 to 7/31/2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and that calls cost $0.01 via x402. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only lookup, nor does it describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if the id is invalid). These gaps limit transparency for a simple lookup operation.
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 sentence that packs dataset identification, operation, provenance, attestation, and pricing into one clause. It front-loads the dataset and purpose but is not broken into digestible parts. It is not overly verbose but could be clearer with separate sentences for purpose and behavior.
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 is adequate for a basic lookup, mentioning the provenance and attestation in the response and the payment requirement. However, it does not explain the record's data fields, the source of the id, or how to interpret the provenance chain. Given there is no output schema, these omissions make the description incomplete for an agent that needs to know what data will be returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 50% coverage (only 'payment' is described). The description adds no explanation of the required 'id' parameter—its format, origin, or how to obtain it. It also does not elaborate on the payment flow beyond what the schema already provides. Since the description fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter, it falls short.
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 explicitly states the operation: 'one record by its identifier' from a specific dataset, naming the dataset, source agency, and date range. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools that target different datasets, fulfilling the specific verb+resource criterion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookup tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or criteria for selecting this over other lookups. The dataset specificity is implied by the name, but the description does not explicitly route an agent to choose this when an id from this dataset is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Week, Place of Death, and Age (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it does disclose useful behavioral traits the schema does not — $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base), and that every response carries a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not describe error behavior, pagination, or what to do when an id is not found, so coverage is partial.
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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the second sentence repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' verbatim from the first, wasting space on duplication rather than adding 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 simple single-record lookup with no output schema, the description communicates the source, the return unit, the payment model, and the attestation. It omits what fields the record contains and any error/edge-case behavior, leaving moderate gaps for an agent to infer.
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 50%: the payment parameter is documented in the schema, but id has no schema description. The description only restates that a record is fetched 'by its identifier' and adds no format, length, or validity guidance for that id, so it barely compensates for the 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?
States a specific verb (retrieve one record) and resource (AH Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Week/Place of Death/Age dataset from CDC), and clarifies it returns a single record by identifier. It is clear on its own but does nothing to distinguish it from the dozens of near-identically named '*_lookup' siblings in the same family.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative, no exclusions, and no prerequisites beyond the datasource name. The payment note implies a pricing model, but nothing tells the agent when this lookup is appropriate relative to sibling lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AH Provisional Diabetes Death Counts for 2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pricing, payment method, and the inclusion of provenance and an Ed25519 attestation in the response. It also mentions the ability to omit payment for a quote, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't detail auth requirements or any error handling, but given the simple operation, this is adequate.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the monetization and provenance details. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the length is slightly long for a simple lookup.
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 required parameter) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the data source, pricing, and response contents. However, it lacks details on the 'id' format, which could cause trial-and-error, and does not explain the provenance chain or attestation beyond mentioning their existence. Overall, it's fairly complete for a straightforward lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents the 'id' parameter only with maxLength, and the description does not clarify what the identifier format is. It mentions 'by its identifier' but provides no syntax or example. The 'payment' parameter is described in the schema and the description provides context on omitting it for a quote, but the description could compensate more for the low schema coverage of 'id'.
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 returns a record by its identifier from a specific CDC dataset, including provenance and attestation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the unique dataset name and the provenance/attestation feature, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other lookup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage via the identifier parameter but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over the many similar sibling lookup tools. It does not state any exclusions or alternatives, which is a notable gap given the large set of similar 'lookup' siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
An aggregated dataset of day 3 post-inoculation viral titer measurements from influenza A virus-infected ferret tissues (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.01 per call), payment method (x402/USDC on Base), and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, or rate limits. The added context about provenance and attestation is valuable beyond the schema.
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 but contains redundancy: the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation are mentioned twice ('with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response' and later 'response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation'). This repetition wastes space and could be tightened.
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 explains the dataset source, the lookup action, cost, and response extras (provenance/attestation), but does not describe the actual structure of the returned record (e.g., fields like titer values, tissue types). Since there is no output schema, this omission is notable, though the core purpose is clear.
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 50%: the 'payment' parameter is described in the schema, while 'id' is not. The description clarifies that 'id' is the record identifier from the published dataset, but adds no format or type detail beyond the schema's string type and maxLength. This partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves some ambiguity about the identifier's nature.
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 retrieves one record by identifier from a specific CDC dataset of day-3 post-inoculation viral titer measurements from ferret tissues. It names the resource and the action ('one record by its identifier'), and the tool name itself distinguishes it from the many sibling lookup tools for other datasets.
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?
Usage context is implied by the dataset description and tool name, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. An agent can infer it is for this specific ferret titer dataset, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Asthma in children younger than age 18, by selected characteristics: United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the $0.01 x402 payment requirement, USDC on Base, and the provenance/Ed25519 attestation included on every response. It stops short of explaining failure modes or what happens for invalid IDs, but it gives meaningful operational 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 front-loaded with the dataset context, but it repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' in both sentences, which adds unnecessary length. It is legible but not tight.
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 one-required-parameter lookup, the description covers the output (one record plus attestation) and cost, and the schema covers payment. The main gap is that the id parameter is not explained well enough to know exactly what value to supply. No output schema exists to fill that gap.
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 only 50% because 'id' has no description. The description's phrase 'by its identifier' adds a little meaning but does not define what the identifier refers to, its format, or how a caller obtains one. The 'payment' parameter is already described in the schema, so the description adds no extra semantic value for it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific CDC dataset (childhood asthma by selected characteristics) and states the operation: return one record by its identifier. This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling lookup tools, though it never names an alternative or explicitly uses a verb like 'retrieve.'
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?
Usage is implied: when a caller has an identifier for a record in this CDC asthma dataset, this tool fetches that one record. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling lookup might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
BEAM Dashboard - Isolates by HHS Region (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the per-call cost, the x402/USDC payment mechanism, and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it does not explain behavior when payment is omitted (the payment parameter schema partially covers this), nor what happens for unknown IDs or how the provenance chain is structured.
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 and front-loaded with the dataset name, but it repeats the provenance chain/Ed25519 attestation phrase twice, which wastes words. The grammar is also awkward ('one record by its identifier from...'), making it less crisp than it could be.
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 two-parameter lookup, the description is minimally viable: it names the dataset, says a single record is returned by identifier, states the price, and mentions response characteristics. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should say more about what the returned record actually contains and how the payment flow works beyond the bare cost and header mention.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 50% of parameters: 'payment' is described, but 'id' has no description. The description partially compensates by saying the tool returns 'one record by its identifier,' which maps to the 'id' parameter. It adds no format, source, or example for the identifier, so the compensation is only moderate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific resource (BEAM Dashboard - Isolates by HHS Region from CDC) and states that it returns 'one record by its identifier.' The verb is somewhat implicit rather than explicit ('lookup' appears in the name, but the description says 'one record by its identifier'), but the resource scope is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling dataset 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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool versus any alternative, and no exclusions or conditions are stated. The description only implies that it is useful when a record identifier from this specific CDC dataset is known. Given many sibling lookup tools, this is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
BEAM Dashboard – Top 30 Most Common Serotypes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that calls cost $0.01 via x402 and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it does not mention failure behavior, response format details, or any prerequisites beyond payment.
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 reasonably short and front-loads the dataset and purpose. However, the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation detail is stated twice, which is redundant and wastes valuable description space.
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 two-parameter lookup tool, the payment and provenance context is helpful, and the schema covers the payment parameter. Still, the description does not explain the expected return shape beyond attestation, nor does it provide guidance on how to choose the `id` value, leaving a meaningful gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents the payment parameter but leaves `id` without a description. The description adds that `id` is an identifier from the CDC dataset, which is useful, but it does not explain the identifier's format, how to obtain it, or how missing values behave.
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 the tool returns 'one record by its identifier' from a specific CDC dataset, which identifies the verb and resource clearly. The dataset name in the title and body distinguishes it from related BEAM Dashboard tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookup tools, or when not to use it. The description provides cost and provenance context but no selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Child Fatalities Trend (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the $0.01 per-call cost, the x402 payment mechanism, and the fact that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. The repeated attestation wording is slightly redundant but still informative.
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 core lookup purpose and remains short. However, it repeats the provenance-chain and attestation phrase in both sentences and names the agency twice, adding mild 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 simple two-parameter lookup, the description covers cost, payment behavior, and response attestation, which is helpful. Still, with no output schema it does not describe the returned record's fields, and it omits id format details, leaving the description adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the payment parameter, while the description clarifies that 'id' is the record identifier. It does not explain the id format or where the identifier comes from, but for a single-id lookup this is acceptable.
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 resource (Child Fatalities Trend data from HHS), the operation (retrieve one record by identifier), and the response style. It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated lookup tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling 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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when you need a single Child Fatalities Trend record by its identifier and are willing to pay via x402. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Children by Disposition (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the $0.01 per-call cost, the x402/USDC-on-Base payment rail, the free-quote fallback, and that every response carries a provenance chain plus Ed25519 attestation. It never states what happens on payment failure or whether the record is idempotent/read-only, so it stops short of 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?
Front-loaded with the dataset name, but the sentence duplicates content: 'with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' appears both mid-sentence and again at the end. The trailing clause is pure redundancy and should be cut.
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 no annotations, so the description should be doing more for a paid data-retrieval tool. Cost, attestation, and the quote flow are covered, but it never characterizes what a 'disposition' record contains, the expected id format, or error/payment-failure 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 50% (the required 'id' is undocumented in the schema). The description compensates by establishing that the argument is the record identifier for this dataset, and adds pricing/quote semantics for the 'payment' parameter beyond what the schema states.
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+resource: retrieve 'one record by its identifier' from the 'Children by Disposition' dataset, naming the publishing agency (HHS). An agent can tell what the tool returns, though it is not explicitly differentiated from the dozens of near-identical '*_lookup' siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the shape of the tool (single-record lookup by ID). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to sibling lookups. The payment note ('omit to receive the payment requirements') hints at a two-step flow but doesn't frame it as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Children Who Received an Investigation or Alternative Response (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses the per-call cost, the x402/USDC payment mechanism, the optional-payment quote behavior, and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. This is substantial useful context beyond the raw schema.
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 reasonably brief and front-loaded with the dataset and lookup purpose, but it repeats 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice in two sentences. This redundancy could be removed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers payment, response attestation, and the single-record lookup nature, which is good for a paid API tool. However, it does not explain the id format, what record fields are returned, or offer any guidance about which sibling tool to use instead. Given no output schema and no annotations, these gaps reduce completeness.
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 50%, and the required 'id' parameter has no schema description. The tool description calls it an 'identifier' but does not explain the expected format, provenance, or how a caller should obtain it. The 'payment' parameter is described in the schema, but the most important parameter is under-specified.
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 retrieves one record by its identifier from a specific HHS dataset, and names that dataset. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling lookup tools, but the dataset name and 'one record by its identifier' are specific enough to convey the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one record by its identifier' implies this tool should be used when the caller already has a specific identifier and wants that single record. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over the many sibling lookup tools or what to do when an identifier is not available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Child Victims Trend (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses non-obvious behavior: responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, and the call costs $0.01 via x402. These go beyond the schema. It doesn't mention auth requirements or failure modes, but for a simple lookup the key side effects (cost, signing) are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one compact, front-loaded sentence covering dataset, source, behavior, provenance, and cost. No redundant restatement of the tool name or 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?
It conveys the essential selection criteria (HHS Child Victims Trend data, single-record lookup, paid) but omits the identifier format, dataset version/source reference, and any differentiation from sibling lookups. Enough for a simple lookup, but not fully self-contained.
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 appears to be an identifier, but the description only restates that the tool returns 'one record by its identifier' without explaining the identifier format, source, or how to obtain it. This adds minimal meaning 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 identifies the specific HHS dataset ('Child Victims Trend'), the action (return one record by identifier), and key output characteristics (provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation). It lacks an explicit main verb like 'retrieves', but the intent is unambiguous and the dataset name distinguishes it from similar sibling 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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over the many sibling lookup tools (e.g., auto_child_fatalities_trend_lookup). There is no mention of prerequisites, identifier format, or alternative tools, so the agent has no support for decisions beyond the dataset name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
COVID-19 Reported Patient Impact and Hospital Capacity by State (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the $0.01 per-call cost, the x402 payment flow, provenance chain, and Ed25519 attestation on every response. The read-style lookup behavior is clear even though it is not explicitly labeled read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably short and front-loaded with the dataset and action. However, the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation are stated twice in consecutive sentences, creating avoidable 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-required-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description gives the source, selection behavior, cost, payment method, and response authentication metadata. It does not enumerate the record's fields, but the detailed dataset title and 'one record' adequately frame the return value.
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?
Only 50% of parameters are documented in the schema; payment is described there, but id is only typed and length-limited. The description adds that the record is selected by its identifier, which clarifies id's role, but it gives no format or example for the identifier and adds no meaning for payment 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 names the specific HHS dataset and makes clear that the tool returns one record by its identifier, so the action and resource are identifiable. It does not use an explicit verb like 'fetches' or 'returns', but the lookup semantics are clear and the dataset name distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the other COVID-19-related lookups or summary tools. The only implied guidance is that this is a single-record lookup for this particular HHS dataset, which the agent must infer on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Allocations by Jurisdiction - Janssen (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behaviors. It explicitly mentions the $0.01 cost per call via x402 (USDC on Base), the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation in every response, and the free quote behavior when payment is omitted. It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read lookup, the key behaviors are covered.
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 front-loads the purpose (resource and action) before adding payment and response details. It is efficient, though it packs many clauses; still, every part adds value and there is 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 tool is a simple lookup with one required parameter and no output schema. The description explains the response includes the record plus provenance and attestation, but does not describe the record's structure or fields. Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap, though the core usage is clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 50% coverage: only 'payment' has a description, while 'id' has none. The description only refers to 'its identifier' without defining what the identifier is or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation on the required parameter, leaving an agent uncertain about what value to supply.
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 identifies the resource (COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Allocations by Jurisdiction - Janssen from CDC) and states it returns one record by identifier. This distinguishes it from the many sibling lookup tools, which target different datasets. The verb is implicit but unambiguous (lookup/fetch by ID).
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 need a specific record from the Janssen vaccine distribution dataset, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given the large sibling set, explicit guidance would be beneficial, but the name and description strongly imply its purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
COVID-19 Vaccines Up to Date Status (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, and calls cost $0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base). This goes beyond the structured schema by revealing payment requirements and response wrapper traits, though it does not mention error behavior or rate limits.
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 and front-loaded with the dataset name, but it redundantly states 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice. This repetition wastes one of only two sentences without adding new information, making it less concise than it could be.
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 single-record lookup, the description covers the dataset, the action, the payment model, and the response wrapper (provenance + attestation), but it leaves the meaning of the required 'id' unexplained and does not describe the record structure or error/quote behavior. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these are notable gaps, though the tool is simple enough to be minimally usable.
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 50%: the payment parameter has a clear schema description, but the required 'id' has no description. The description's mention of 'by its identifier' adds no concrete meaning about what this identifier is or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact dataset ('COVID-19 Vaccines Up to Date Status' from CDC) and the action ('one record by its identifier'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling auto_*_lookup tools. The resource and verb are specific enough for an agent to know this is a single-record retrieval from a particular CDC dataset.
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 context about the dataset and the paid nature of the call, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternative lookup tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the dataset reference; there are no when/when-not conditions or mentioned alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Cumulative Influenza Vaccination Coverage, by Flu Season and Race/Ethnicity, Pregnant Women 18-49 years (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the $0.01 x402 payment requirement and that responses include provenance and an Ed25519 attestation. However, it does not mention behavior for missing/invalid IDs, whether a quote is returned when payment is omitted, or any rate limits, leaving notable gaps.
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 repeats 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' verbatim twice, adding no new information the second time. Much of the opening essentially restates the long tool name, so the text is not as tight or front-loaded as it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-record lookup with no output schema, the price and attestation details are valuable. Still, the description omits practical invocation details such as what an 'id' looks like, what happens on missing records, and the exact flow for obtaining a free quote, making it adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, with only 'payment' described. The description adds context that 'id' is the record identifier and that payment involves x402 at $0.01, but it does not explain id format, examples, or how the payment parameter interacts with the quote behavior beyond what the schema already states.
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 identifies a specific resource—Cumulative Influenza Vaccination Coverage data from CDC—and a specific action: fetching one record by identifier. It distinguishes itself from sibling auto_*_lookup tools primarily through the dataset name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.
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 similar auto_*_lookup siblings. The only implied condition is that the agent already has an identifier for this specific dataset, but valid identifier formats and selection criteria are not discussed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
DEV DQS Cholesterol in adults age 20 and older, by selected characteristics: United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the $0.01 x402 payment requirement, the USDC-on-Base payment method, and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It omits error/not-found behavior, but the cost and response guarantees are meaningfully disclosed.
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 front-loads the dataset and operation, and the cost/payment information is useful. However, the phrase 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' is repeated verbatim, and the long first sentence is somewhat run-on.
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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the dataset, the identifier-based mode, the payment flow, and the response contents. It does not describe not-found behavior or ID format, but the core invocation context is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents the 'payment' parameter well, but the required 'id' parameter has no schema description. The description only calls it 'identifier,' which is redundant with the parameter name and adds no detail about format, source, or how to obtain valid IDs. With 50% schema coverage, this is insufficient added meaning.
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 identifies a specific CDC dataset and states the operation as 'one record by its identifier,' which clearly implies a record lookup. It is distinguishable from sibling lookups by naming the cholesterol dataset explicitly, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the other lookup tools.
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 this should be used when a caller needs a single record by identifier from this specific CDC cholesterol dataset. It does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the dataset-specific lookup purpose is clear enough for basic tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
DEV DQS Death rates for suicide, by sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age: United States from CDC WONDER (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and that the call costs $0.01 via x402. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or the payment-requirements flow when payment is omitted.
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 somewhat long-winded and duplicates itself: the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation are mentioned twice. The essential information (dataset, id lookup, payment, response guarantees) is present but could be tightened into fewer, less-redundant sentences.
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 two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the most important aspects: the dataset resource, the identifier role, the cost/payment mechanism, and the response's guaranteed contents. It does not describe the record structure, but that is inferable from the dataset name and is not necessary for a simple id lookup, particularly since the schema already explains when to omit payment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes 'payment' but not 'id'. The description does add that id is a record identifier from the CDC dataset, which slightly clarifies the otherwise undocumented id parameter. But it does not describe the identifier format or range, and the 50% schema coverage leaves room for more explanation.
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 defines a specific action (one record by its identifier) and names the precise dataset (death rates for suicide, by sex/race/Hispanic origin/age, CDC WONDER). It is distinguishable from siblings because the dataset is named, but the verb is somewhat indirect (one record by identifier rather than an explicit 'fetch' or 'get') and it lacks a direct contrast to other lookup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling lookup tools or any alternative. It does not mention conditions like 'use this when you have an ID from the mortality dataset' nor exclude cases like broader queries. The context is only implicit from the model name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
DEV DQS Drug overdose death rates, by drug type, sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin: United States from CDC WONDER (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: a $0.01 per-call cost via x402 (USDC on Base), an optional payment step, and a provenance chain plus Ed25519 attestation on every response. It does not, however, describe error behavior (e.g., unknown id) or the record's return shape.
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 readable but redundant: 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' appears twice in the same paragraph, and the leading 'DEV DQS' token consumes space without informing the agent. The action is buried behind the dataset title rather than 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully specify behavior. It covers pricing, payment, and attestation, but leaves the id format and failure modes unspecified, which for a single-record lookup is a material gap.
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 only 50%: the 'payment' parameter is documented in the schema but 'id' has no schema description. The description only hints that the id identifies a record ('by its identifier') without specifying format, source, or examples, so it adds marginal value over the structured fields.
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 identifies a concrete verb (retrieving one record by its identifier) and a specific resource (CDC WONDER drug overdose death rates dataset). It clearly names the dataset dimensions (drug type, sex, age, race, Hispanic origin), which helps distinguish it from sibling lookups, though the 'DEV DQS' prefix is noise rather than meaning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one record by its identifier' implies the caller must already possess an id, giving implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of how to obtain an id, and no comparison to adjacent tools like the suicide death-rate lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
DEV DQS Fetal, late fetal, and perinatal mortality rates, by detailed race and Hispanic origin of mother United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the $0.01 x402 payment requirement, the provenance chain, and the Ed25519 attestation on responses. However, it never explicitly states that this is a read-only operation or mentions any rate limits or error behavior, leaving the safety profile partially implicit.
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 repeats the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation information twice verbatim, wasting words. While the dataset name is front-loaded, the duplication and redundant phrasing make it less concise than it should be for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the returned record looks like beyond attestation metadata. It only mentions the provenance/attestation, not the actual data fields or the nature of the id. The identifier parameter's source and format are unaddressed, leaving an agent unable to correctly call the tool without external knowledge.
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 50% (payment has a description; id does not). The description adds that id is an 'identifier' for the record, but gives no details on its format, where to find it, or how to construct it. The payment parameter's semantics come solely from the schema, not the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches one record by its identifier from a specific CDC dataset (fetal, late fetal, and perinatal mortality rates by race/Hispanic origin), which differentiates it from the closely related infant mortality sibling. The verb 'one record by its identifier' makes the lookup operation explicit.
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 choose this tool over the many sibling lookup tools, especially the near-identical infant mortality lookup. The description does not state prerequisites, how to obtain an id, or when not to use this tool. The dataset name is the only implicit selector.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
DEV DQS Infant, neonatal, and postneonatal mortality rates, by detailed race and Hispanic origin of mother: United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, and that payment is required via x402. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if there are rate limits, or what happens on invalid IDs. The disclosed behaviors are helpful but incomplete.
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 provides essential details: dataset, function, provenance, attestation, and pricing. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with purpose. Minor redundancy: mentions provenance and attestation twice, but overall it's 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: how to retrieve a record, payment requirements, and response components. It could mention error cases or id format, but the context is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the 'payment' parameter but not 'id'. The description fills that gap by stating 'id' is the identifier from the dataset, which adds meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't elaborate on the format or example values, but the coverage is 50% and the description does compensate for the missing 'id' doc.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches one record by identifier from a CDC dataset on infant mortality rates, and mentions it includes provenance and attestation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact dataset and unique 'lookup' function, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other lookup tools.
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: call with an id to retrieve a single record, and optionally provide payment for the paid response. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance, but the lookup pattern is clear from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
DEV DQS NHANES Select Oral Health Prevalence Estimates (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: a $0.01 x402/USDC payment requirement, and a provenance chain plus Ed25519 attestation on every response. It does not mention error/not-found behavior or explicitly say read-only, but 'one record by its identifier' plus the lookup name make the operation reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is front-loaded and the description is compact, but the phrase 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' appears twice in nearly identical form. A single consolidated sentence would carry the same information with less repetition.
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 two-parameter lookup, the description is usable: the agent knows it fetches one record by id and knows the payment quote path. However, without an output schema, id semantics, or any distinction from the similarly named non-dev oral-health sibling, the definition leaves several gaps for an agent trying to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents the payment parameter but leaves id with only a type and maxLength; the description only calls it 'an identifier' without explaining the identifier format or source. This does not meaningfully compensate for the 50% schema description coverage 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 states a clear action: fetch one record by its identifier from a named CDC dataset, which is enough to convey the core lookup behavior. It distinguishes the resource from most siblings by dataset name, though a sibling with the same oral-health dataset name exists, so it is not a fully unique differentiator.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as auto_nhanes_select_oral_health_prevalence_estimates_lookup or the chronic-conditions variant. The only usage hint is the payment omission note, which is really parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Distribution of COVID-19 Deaths and Populations, by Jurisdiction, Age, and Race and Hispanic Origin (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by stating the per-call cost ($0.01 via x402), the payment currency/network, and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. This adds meaningful operational context that the schema does not convey, though it does not mention failure modes or authorization requirements.
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 rambling sentence that repeats itself: 'with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response' and 'response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.' The redundant phrasing wastes space and makes the description less scannable, though the core facts are present.
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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers cost, attestation, provenance, and the fact that a single record is returned. However, it omits practical details such as the expected format of the id, how to discover valid identifiers, and what happens when the id is not found. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 only 50% (payment has a description, id does not). The description says 'one record by its identifier' but adds no further detail about the id format, how to obtain it, or an example. The payment parameter is already described in the schemaoral, so the description adds almost no semantic value beyond what is already structured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the specific CDC dataset and states that it returns 'one record by its identifier,' which clearly indicates a lookup operation. The verb is somewhat implicit ('one record by its identifier' rather than 'retrieves'), but the resource is specific and the dataset name distinguishes it from the many other auto_* lookup siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the numerous sibling lookup tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which this lookup is preferred. The only contextual hint is the dataset name in the title, which is not enough to route an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
DQS Delay or nonreceipt of needed medical care, prescription drugs, or dental care during the past 12 months due to cost: United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the paid nature ($0.01 via x402/USDC on Base), the response wrapper (provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation), and the data source. It omits failure behavior and rate limits, but for a simple lookup the core behavior is well covered.
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 front-loaded sentence that is easy to scan, but the provenance-chain and attestation statement is repeated nearly verbatim, wasting words. It could be tightened without losing 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 2-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description covers the dataset, the lookup key, pricing, and the response wrapper. It does not explain how identifiers are obtained or how errors are reported, but the information needed to select and begin invoking the tool is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema thoroughly documents the payment parameter, and the description adds that 'id' selects a record from the CDC dataset, giving the otherwise undocumented required parameter some meaning. It still leaves the id format and source unspecified, so it only partially compensates for the moderate schema 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 names the exact CDC DQS dataset and the operation ('one record by its identifier'), making the resource and action clear. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling lookup tools, though the dataset name largely does that work.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you need a single record from this specific CDC dataset. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusion criteria, so guidance is present but only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
DQS NHIS Child Summary Statistics Footnotes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful behavioral context: every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and calls cost $0.01 via x402/USDC on Base. It does not cover not-found behavior or rate limits, but payment and attestation traits are clearly disclosed.
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 and front-loaded with the dataset name, but it redundantly states that the response includes 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice. The payment information is useful, but the duplication makes the description less tight than it could be.
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 cost, payment rail, and response attestation, which is helpful for a paid lookup tool. However, it lacks id format or examples, any detail about the dataset's contents, and any differentiation from sibling lookups; with no output schema and no annotations, these gaps leave an agent to infer how to properly call 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?
The description adds only minimal meaning for the required 'id' parameter, identifying it as the record identifier, while the schema provides just 'type: string, maxLength: 200'. The 'payment' parameter is already described in the schema, so no extra credit is earned there; with 50% schema coverage, more compensation was needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific CDC dataset ('DQS NHIS Child Summary Statistics Footnotes') and the operation ('one record by its identifier'), which is enough to distinguish it from the many sibling lookup tools. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'looks up', but the lookup intent is unmistakable from the phrasing.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the dozens of auto_*_lookup siblings, nor are any alternatives or exclusions mentioned. The description focuses on cost and response contents rather than selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
DQS Visits to physician offices, hospital outpatient departments, and hospital emergency departments, by age, sex, and race: United States (Archived) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base) and a provenance chain with Ed25519 attestation on every response. However, it never states what happens on a missing/invalid id, and the attestation clause is repeated twice verbatim, diluting the added 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?
The core purpose is stated up front, but the sentence is bloated by a long dataset title and a duplicated 'provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation' clause that repeats information already given. It is functional but not tight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-record lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resource, the fact that one record is returned, cost, and payment mechanism, which is roughly adequate. It omits error behavior and any notion of the record's field structure, leaving some gaps for a paid lookup 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 50%: 'payment' is well documented in the schema, but 'id' has only a type/maxLength. The description partially compensates by clarifying that id is the record identifier, but adds no format, length, or example semantics beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb+resource ('one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset') and identifies the exact dataset (DQS visits to physician offices/outpatient/emergency departments by age, sex, race), which is enough to distinguish it from the many sibling *_lookup tools. It is clear about what is returned, though the dataset title is verbose rather than crisp.
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 implies you need an identifier to fetch a record, and the schema notes you can omit payment for a free quote, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing relative to the dozens of sibling lookup/summary tools. No when-not conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Examination of SARS-CoV-2 serological test results from multiple commercial and laboratory platforms with an in-house serum panel (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the request costs $0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base), and every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation. It could also mention not-found behavior, but it covers payment, provenance, and attestation, which is solid for a lookup 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 front-loaded with the specific resource and lookup behavior, but it repeats the same provenance-chain and Ed25519-attestation detail twice: once for 'every response' and once more for 'response includes.' This redundancy costs clarity without adding new 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 simple two-parameter lookup tool with no annotation and no output schema, the description provides the dataset, the id semantics, the payment flow, the cost, and the response attestation details. It does not enumerate the record fields returned, but for selecting and invoking this specific lookup tool, the coverage is 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?
The description clarifies that 'id' means the identifier from the CDC dataset, and it explains the payment requirement in terms of cost and x402 payment method, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. The schema already documents payment as an encoded X-PAYMENT header and the free-quote behavior, and the description reinforces that context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a very specific CDC dataset—SARS-CoV-2 serological test results from multiple commercial and laboratory platforms—and states the operation: retrieving one record by its identifier. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling lookup tools, each tied to a different dataset, without needing to name an alternative.
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 when to use the tool: when you need a single SARS-CoV-2 serological test record by identifier from the CDC-published dataset. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against alternatives among the many sibling lookup tools, leaving the usage guidance mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
FY 2023 HHS Contingency Staffing Plan for a Lapse in Appropriation (Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden and it does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: cost ($0.01 per call via x402), the payment mechanism, and the presence of a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation in every response. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple read-style lookup this is substantive 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?
The description is one dense sentence that front-loads the dataset and lookup purpose, but it repeats the provenance-chain and Ed25519-attestation detail twice ('with ... on every response' and 'response includes ...'), which is redundant and could be tightened.
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 two-parameter lookup with no annotations or output schema, the description supplies the key operational context: cost, x402 payment flow, and response contents (provenance/attestation). It does not explain the record's field structure, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the simple lookup nature and the optional payment quote behavior being defined in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers only 50% of parameters (payment is described; id is not). The description adds that id selects a record in the named dataset, but does not specify id format or examples. Payment semantics are already in schema and only echoed by the description, so value added is limited.
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 identifies the resource (FY 2023 HHS Contingency Staffing Plan...) and the operation ('one record by its identifier'), distinguishing it from sibling auto_*_lookup tools by dataset name. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'retrieves,' relying on the tool name and noun phrase.
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 implies usage when you have an identifier for this specific published dataset, and the dataset name separates it from sibling lookups. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Monovalent Booster Audience - Wave 16 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: the $0.01 per-call cost via x402 (USDC on Base), the payment flow (omitting payment yields requirements), and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It doesn't cover error handling or response structure beyond that, but for a simple lookup this is solid.
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 sentence that front-loads the resource and action, which is good. However, it repeats the provenance/attestation detail twice, making it slightly redundant. It could be tightened without losing 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 2-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and payment mechanics, but it doesn't describe the returned record fields or possible error cases. An agent knows it is a paid id-based lookup but not what data will come back beyond the provenance and attestation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes only the payment parameter; the required 'id' parameter has no schema description and the overall coverage is 50%. The description adds only that the record is found 'by its identifier', which is nearly tautological with the lookup name. It does not explain id format, example values, or where the identifier comes from.
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 identifies the exact dataset and wave (HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey – Monovalent Booster Audience – Wave 16) and says it returns 'one record by its identifier'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling lookups for other waves or vaccine audiences, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'looks up'.
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 implies usage when you need a specific record from this dataset, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with the many sibling lookups (e.g., wave 18 or primary vaccine series waves). There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar ones or what to do if a record is not found.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Monovalent Booster Audience - Wave 18 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: cost ($0.01 via x402/USDC on Base), the ability to omit payment for a quote, and the provenance chain plus Ed25519 attestation on every response. It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but the core read-only lookup behavior and response guarantees are transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the dataset, but the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation are stated twice in nearly identical wording, so the second sentence does not earn its place. Removing the redundancy would make it tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning the response includes provenance and attestation, but it never describes the actual survey record contents. For a paid lookup, an agent would benefit from knowing what data fields the record contains and what an unknown id returns.
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 payment parameter is already described in the schema, so that adds no new meaning. The description only says the tool fetches 'one record by its identifier', which adds little beyond the parameter name 'id'; it does not specify the id format, example, or how it maps to the dataset.
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 operation ('one record by its identifier') and names the exact dataset ('HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Monovalent Booster Audience - Wave 18'), which lets an agent identify the resource. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling wave/audience lookups, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this lookup instead of a sibling tool, and no mention of exclusions or alternatives. The only usage hint is the payment-omission behavior, which is schema-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Monovalent Booster Audience - Wave 20 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the call costs $0.01 via x402, the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, and it retrieves a single record. This goes beyond minimal info and sets expectations for payment and response integrity. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a simple lookup, this is reasonable.
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 sentence that packs essential information (dataset, lookup type, provenance, attestation, cost) without waste. It is front-loaded with the dataset name. Though it could be split for readability, it is efficient and covers key points.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple two-parameter lookup, the description is fairly complete. It covers the operation, cost, and response attestation. It does not explain what happens if the id is not found or how the provenance chain is structured, but these are minor for a simple fetch. The pricing and payment quote behavior are addressed, making it usable.
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 50% (only the payment parameter has a description in the schema). The description adds little to parameter semantics: it vaguely refers to 'identifier' without defining format or constraints, and it mentions x402 but not the payment parameter directly. The payment parameter's behavior (omitting for a quote) is already in the schema, so the description does not compensate for the missing id description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Monovalent Booster Audience - Wave 20) with precise scope ('one record by its identifier'). It clearly differentiates from the many sibling lookup tools by naming the exact dataset and wave, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.
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 tool is for fetching a specific record by identifier, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs the many wave/survey siblings. It does mention the payment behavior ('$0.01 per call via x402') and implicitly suggests omitting payment for a quote, but that detail is actually in the schema's payment description, not fully in the description. No exclusions or alternative tools are listed, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Primary Vaccine Series - Wave 06 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral context: per-call pricing ($0.01 via x402/USDC on Base), that payment is required, and that responses carry a provenance chain plus Ed25519 attestation. It does not describe what happens on a missing identifier, error behavior, or what fields the record contains, so the disclosure is partial.
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 wastes space by stating "with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response" and then repeating the identical claim at the end. Roughly half the text is duplication, and the actual action is buried behind a very long dataset title.
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-record lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers payment, cost, and attestation, which is useful. However, it omits anything about the record's contents, identifier format, and how this wave differs from the many sibling wave datasets, leaving genuine gaps.
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 50%: the 'payment' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'id' is not. The description adds only the vague phrase "by its identifier," with no format, length, or example to compensate for the undocumented id parameter, so this sits at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: it returns "one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset" for this HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey wave. The wave-specific subject matter is clear, though the description offers no differentiation from near-identical siblings like wave_07/wave_08 other than the wave number carried in the name itself.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions distinguishing this wave-06 lookup from the many sibling wave lookups, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the payment mechanics. An agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the correct choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Primary Vaccine Series - Wave 07 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses the paid x402/USDC requirement, the $0.01 cost, and the provenance chain plus Ed25519 attestation returned with every response. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'lookup' and 'one record' strongly imply retrieval, and the quote-when-no-payment behavior is present in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, but it repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' almost verbatim in both sentences. The $0.01/x402 information earns its place; the duplicated attestation phrase does not.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-record lookup with no output schema, the description covers the record retrieval, response authenticity metadata, payment protocol, and cost. The main omissions are identifier format and x402 handshake details, but they are minor given the simple schema and exact-match nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema leaves id undocumented, and the description clarifies that id is the record's identifier, but gives no format or example. The payment parameter is fully described in the schema and reinforced by the description's payment details; this partially compensates for 50% schema coverage but not completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact dataset, wave, and operation: 'one record by its identifier.' The survey/wave naming clearly separates it from sibling tools like wave_08 or booster-audience lookups, so an agent can identify what this tool is for.
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?
'One record by its identifier' establishes an exact-match lookup context, and the dataset/wave scope tells an agent when this particular lookup applies. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Primary Vaccine Series - Wave 08 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.01 via x402/USDC on Base) and the response guarantees (provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation), which are material behavioral traits. It is not a full account of error/not-found behavior, but it is substantially transparent for a simple lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the source and action, but the provenance-chain/attestation detail is stated twice: once in the first sentence and again in the last sentence. That redundancy prevents a higher score.
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 low-complexity paid lookup with no output schema and no annotations, it provides the essential operational context: source, lookup scope, cost, payment mechanism, and response attestation. It could add id format/not-found behavior, but nothing critical is missing for deciding when to call 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?
Schema coverage is only 50%; the required id parameter has no schema description. The description supplies the key semantic that id is the dataset's record identifier, but gives no format or example. The payment parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description adds only partial value there.
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 names a concrete resource (HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey Primary Vaccine Series Wave 08) and a specific verb/scope: retrieve one record by its identifier. This distinguishes it from the many sibling summary/list tools such as cpsc_recall_monthly_summary or cpi_us_monthly.
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?
"One record by its identifier" implies the point-lookup use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over the dozens of sibling lookup tools, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites beyond payment. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Primary Vaccine Series - Wave 17 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the per-call cost, the x402 payment mechanism, and the provenance chain/Ed25519 attestation included in every response. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the operation itself.
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 and front-loaded with the dataset identity, but the sentence 'with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response' is repeated almost verbatim in the next sentence. Minor redundancy, otherwise each clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool, the description covers the essential: dataset identity, operation, cost, payment behavior, and response attestation. It does not describe the output fields or error behavior, but given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, this is adequate.
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 50% (only payment has a description). The description clarifies that 'id' is a record identifier from the published dataset but provides no format guidance or example. Payment semantics are already in the schema and reinforced with pricing info in the description.
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 explicitly identifies the exact dataset (HHS COVID-19 Primary Vaccine Series Wave 17) and the operation (one record by its identifier). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lookup tools for other waves/dataset variants.
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 dataset and operation are clearly stated, and the payment flow (including free quote when omitted) is documented. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings for other waves, but the precise dataset identity leaves little ambiguity about when to call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Primary Vaccine Series - Wave 24 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.01 per call via x402), the provenance chain, and the Ed25519 attestation on every response. It does not describe what happens on a failed lookup, whether the id must be URL-encoded, or any rate limits. The disclosed behaviors are useful but not comprehensive.
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 front-loads the dataset and operation, then adds payment and attestation details. It is compact and every clause adds information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately sized for a lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, payment requirement, and response attestation. It lacks guidance on the id format, error behavior, and how the provenance chain is returned. Given the paid nature and the large sibling set, a bit more context would help, but the essentials are present.
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 50%: the 'payment' parameter is described in the schema, but 'id' is not. The description says 'one record by its identifier' which adds minimal meaning to 'id' (a string with maxLength 200). It doesn't explain what the identifier looks like (e.g., UUID, numeric, dataset-specific key). The payment parameter's behavior is well covered by the schema, so the description adds little beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('lookup' / 'one record by its identifier') and a specific resource (HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey, Primary Vaccine Series, Wave 24). It clearly identifies the dataset and the operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many sibling wave lookups, but the wave number in the name and description distinguishes it enough.
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: call with an identifier to retrieve one record. It mentions the payment flow ('Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote)') which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the other wave lookups or the monovalent/updated bivalent variants, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Primary Vaccine Series - Wave 27 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: paid access at $0.01 via x402, a provenance chain, and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. It doesn't cover error cases or not-found behavior, but for a read-only lookup the disclosed cost and attestation are above average.
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 reasonably short and front-loaded, but it repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' verbatim in both sentences. The second sentence could have added only the pricing and x402 details without the 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 simple single-record lookup, the description covers source, operation, price, and attestation, but lacks guidance on what constitutes a valid id and what a successful record response contains beyond the attestation. No output schema or annotations exist to fill these gaps, so it is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50%; the 'id' parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description only calls it an 'identifier' without specifying its format, source, or relationship to Wave 27. The 'payment' parameter is well described in the schema, but the description adds no further parameter-level meaning.
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 operation ('one record by its identifier') on a specific resource (HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Primary Vaccine Series - Wave 27), naming the dataset and wave. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling wave lookups and other aggregate survey tools.
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?
Implies use for single-record retrieval through 'one record by its identifier,' but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria, nor does it name alternatives among the many sibling lookup tools. An agent must infer appropriateness from the dataset name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HHS COVID-19 Small Area Estimations Survey - Updated Bivalent Vaccine Audience - Wave 24 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses per-call cost, x402 payment mechanism, provenance chain, and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. It stops short of describing return structure, error cases, or read-only guarantees, but the core behavioral traits are usefully exposed.
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 compact sentence and front-loads the dataset identity, but it repeats the provenance-chain/attestation detail twice. The redundancy adds noise without adding 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?
This is a simple lookup, but with no output schema the description should say more about what the returned record contains beyond the provenance and attestation. It also omits error/not-found behavior and does not mention the free quote flow, which is only discoverable in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50% because the required `id` parameter lacks a description. The description adds that the tool returns 'one record by its identifier,' which clarifies `id`'s role, but it does not explain id format or how to obtain it. The `payment` parameter semantics are left to the schema, which already documents the free-quote behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete operation: look up one record by identifier from a specific HHS dataset/wave. It clearly names the resource and the action, though it does not explicitly differentiate this from the many similar sibling wave/survey lookup tools.
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 is given for when to use this tool versus sibling wave lookups or other survey lookups. The context is limited to the dataset identity and payment details, with no mention of preferred use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Infant Protection Against Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) by Maternal RSV Vaccination or Receipt of RSV Monoclonal Antibody, and Intent for RSV Monoclonal Antibody Receipt Rep… (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful behavioral context: it costs $0.01 per call via x402 on Base, and every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation. However, it omits read-only/side-effect clarity, error behavior for missing IDs, and the free-quote flow, so transparency is partial.
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 repeats 'provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation' twice, contains a truncated ellipsis in the dataset title, and mixes the dataset title with functional instructions. It front-loads the resource but wastes words on duplication and extraneous title text.
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, so the description should state what the returned record actually contains; it only mentions provenance and attestation. It also leaves the identifier format and payment flow underspecified, making the description incomplete for a paid single-record lookup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents only the payment parameter, and the description adds that payment is x402 USDC on Base and costs $0.01. The 'id' parameter is only loosely described as 'identifier,' without explaining its format or where to obtain it, so the description only partially compensates for the 50% schema 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 identifies the specific CDC RSV dataset and states that the tool returns one record by its identifier, which conveys a lookup operation. It does not use an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'look up,' but the resource and scope are clear enough to distinguish it from summary or search siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over sibling lookup or summary tools, and there are no mentions of prerequisites or alternative tools. The only usage signal is implied by 'one record by its identifier,' which is insufficient for an agent deciding between this and many similar lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lyme disease public use aggregated data with geography, 2022-2023 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It adds important details: $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base), and every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. These go beyond the schema, though it does not mention failure modes or rate limits.
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 and front-loaded with purpose, but it repeats the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation twice in the same sentence, wasting words. A single mention would be sufficient, so not every sentence 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 simple two-parameter lookup tool, the description covers operational essentials (payment, attestation) but omits guidance on the id format and what fields the returned record contains. Since there is no output schema, this missing information could leave an agent uncertain about the response shape, though the low complexity limits the severity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the required 'id' parameter, and the tool description only calls it an 'identifier' without explaining its format, source, or how to obtain valid values. The payment parameter is already described in the schema, so the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact dataset (Lyme disease, 2022-2023, with geography, from CDC) and states the specific action: retrieve one record by its identifier. This makes the tool's resource and verb unambiguous and clearly separates it from sibling lookup tools for other datasets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for Lyme disease record lookup but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling lookups, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The context is somewhat clear, but the agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name and dataset mention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Mapping Injury, Overdose, and Violence - National (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the $0.01 per-call x402/USDC payment requirement, the option to omit payment for a free quote, and the response's provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'one record by its identifier' strongly implies a non-mutating lookup.
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 dataset name and core action, but it repeats 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' nearly verbatim in the same sentence. The run-on structure could be tightened without losing 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?
The description covers the essential payment mechanism, the lookup action, and the provenance/attestation aspects of the response. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description still leaves gaps: it does not describe the record fields, the exact meaning of 'identifier,' or error/edge-case 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 schema already documents the payment parameter well, and the description adds useful payment context (x402, USDC on Base, $0.01). However, the required `id` parameter is only described as 'identifier,' with no format, source, or example, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema description on that parameter.
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 that the tool returns one record by its identifier from a CDC published dataset in the injury/overdose/violence domain. It is reasonably clear about the action and resource, though 'the agency's published dataset' is vague and does not strongly differentiate it from the many other CDC lookup siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the roughly 70 sibling lookup tools. The only implied use is 'lookup by identifier' for this CDC dataset; no alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Monthly COVID-19 Death Rates per 100,000 Population by Age Group, Race and Ethnicity, Sex, and Region (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the $0.01 x402 cost and the provenance chain/Ed25519 attestation on responses, which is useful, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens when an identifier is not found.
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 reasonably sized and front-loaded with the dataset and operation, but it repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice, adding redundancy without new 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 paid single-record lookup with no output schema, the description explains the cost, response attestation, and basic operation. It does not describe the returned record's fields, error cases, or how to obtain a valid identifier, so it is not fully self-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?
The description adds meaning to the otherwise undocumented 'id' parameter by calling it the record's identifier. The 'payment' parameter is already described in the schema. However, the identifier's format or source is not clarified, and schema coverage is only 50%.
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 identifies the resource (CDC monthly COVID-19 death rates dataset) and the operation ('one record by its identifier'). The dataset name is specific enough to distinguish this from sibling lookup tools, though the verb is implied rather than explicit.
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 choose this tool over the many similar CDC lookup siblings. The description implies single-record lookup by identifier but does not state exclusions, alternatives, or context for using the optional payment parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Monthly Cumulative Number and Percent of Children <20 Months Who Received Nirsevimab by Age Group and Jurisdiction, United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses payment cost, x402/USDC payment, provenance chain, and Ed25519 attestation. However, it omits read-only status, idempotency, auth requirements, rate limits, and 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?
The dataset scope is front-loaded, but the description repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice and is somewhat redundant. It is serviceable but not tight.
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 lookup it covers the operation, cost, and security attestation, but it does not explain the identifier semantics or return fields despite having no output schema. More context would help an agent invoke it 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 coverage is only 50%; the id parameter has no schema description and the description adds little beyond saying 'by its identifier,' without explaining format or origin. The payment parameter is already documented in 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?
States a specific dataset and record-by-identifier operation, making the resource clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling lookup tools beyond the dataset name.
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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'one record by its identifier.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Monthly Cumulative Number and Percent of Children <8 Months Who Received 1+ Monoclonal Antibody Doses by Jurisdiction, United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: single-record response, provenance chain, Ed25519 attestation, and a $0.01 x402 payment requirement. However, it omits not-found/error behavior, id format expectations, and any explicit read-only statement, and it repeats the attestation detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short and front-loads the dataset name and purpose. However, the provenance-chain and Ed25519 attestation detail is stated twice, making the text redundant and slightly disorganized.
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 id-based lookup, the description conveys the resource, single-record result, cost, and response attestation. But without an output schema, it does not describe the returned record fields or behavior when the id is invalid or not found, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% because the payment parameter has a description while the required id parameter does not. The description adds that the tool retrieves a record 'by its identifier', clarifying the role of id, but it does not explain the identifier's format or how to obtain it. This partially compensates for the schema 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 states the operation clearly: retrieve 'one record by its identifier' from a named CDC dataset about monthly cumulative monoclonal antibody doses in children under 8 months. This is a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many similar sibling lookup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one record by its identifier' implies when to use the tool: when a specific record identifier from this dataset is already known. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving some ambiguity among the many sibling lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Monthly Cumulative Number and Percent of Children <8 Months Who Received Nirsevimab by Jurisdiction, United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the per-call payment, x402/USDC payment mechanism, provenance chain, and Ed25519 attestation. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, but 'lookup' and 'one record by its identifier' strongly imply it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but it redundantly repeats 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' in both sentences. The redundant clause could be removed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers payment, response attestation, and provenance, but with no output schema it does not explain the actual record fields or how missing/invalid identifiers are handled. For a paid one-record lookup, the return payload format would be valuable 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 50%: the payment parameter is already documented in the schema, while the id parameter is not. The description says 'one record by its identifier,' which adds only generic meaning to the id and does not explain what identifier format to use or where to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (CDC monthly cumulative Nirsevimab data for children <8 months), the operation (one-record lookup by identifier), and the source. It is distinguishable from the sibling 20-months lookup by naming the specific age group and dataset.
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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it name the closely related 20-months sibling. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and dataset description, which is risky given the many similar lookup siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Nationwide Commercial Laboratory Seroprevalence Survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base), a provenance chain, and Ed25519 attestation. It stops short of covering invalid-id behavior or rate limits, but the key paid-API behavior is clear.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the text is short, but the provenance-chain and Ed25519-attestation detail is stated twice, once in each sentence, which is redundant. Tightening would make it fully concise.
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 definition includes cost, quote behavior, and response attestation, but there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the identifier format, error behavior, or the shape of the returned record. It is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves important operational details to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that the required `id` is the identifier of the CDC dataset record, which is a modest addition over the bare `id` property. The `payment` parameter's semantics are already documented in the schema, and no format or example for the identifier is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a precise action ('one record by its identifier') and names a specific CDC dataset, which separates it from the many other auto_*_lookup siblings. The phrase 'from the agency's published dataset' clarifies the 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?
Use is implied by the identifier-based lookup wording, and the payment call cost signals a paid-API context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to sibling tools. An agent must infer that this tool is for retrieving a specific record only when it already has the dataset identifier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NCHS - Age-adjusted Death Rates for Selected Major Causes of Death (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose useful behaviors: one-record retrieval, a provenance chain, an Ed25519 attestation, and a $0.01 x402 payment requirement. However, it omits failure behavior, invalid-id handling, and response format, so transparency is only partial.
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 and front-loaded, but it repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice, wasting a sentence. It would be more concise if the duplicate clause were removed.
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 no annotations, an agent still lacks the returned record's fields, the id format, and error/not-found behavior. The dataset name and attestation details help selection, but the description is not complete enough to guarantee correct invocation or interpretation of the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: only 'payment' has a schema description. The tool description reinforces that 'id' is an identifier and adds pricing context for payment, but it does not explain what a valid id looks like or how to obtain one, so it does little to compensate for the undocumented id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact dataset ('NCHS - Age-adjusted Death Rates for Selected Major Causes of Death') and states that it returns 'one record by its identifier', making the lookup purpose clear. It distinguishes the dataset from sibling NCHS tools mainly through the dataset name, without calling out a sibling explicitly.
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 appropriate use case: retrieve a single record when an identifier is known. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among the many sibling lookup tools, so the agent must infer selection from the dataset name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NCHS - Birth Rates for Females by Age Group: United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: one record returned per call, a provenance chain, an Ed25519 attestation on every response, a $0.01 x402 payment, and the free-quote-on-omit-payment pattern. However it omits error behavior (unknown id), whether the returned fields align with the dataset, and rate limits. The disclosure is above average but incomplete.
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 but is poorly structured: it front-loads a redundant dataset title and parenthetical agency citation, then repeats 'provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation' twice, wasting words. It is not badly sized but the duplication and buried payment mechanics hurt front-loading.
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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description should explain the return shape, id format, and error behavior more fully. It covers payment, provenance, and attestation but leaves the id format and what happens on a miss unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps for a data-retrieval tool in a large sibling set.
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 50%: the 'payment' parameter has a description, while 'id' does not. The description compensates by explaining that 'id' selects one record by identifier and that omitting payment yields a free quote – exactly the semantics an agent needs for both parameters. That goes beyond the schema's terse payment description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the specific dataset (NCHS birth rates for females by age group, United States) and states it retrieves 'one record by its identifier,' distinguishing it from sibling aggregation tools like nchs_births_and_general_fertility_rates. It is clear what the tool does, though the florid naming duplicates the dataset title rather than adding a distinct verb+resource beyond 'lookup.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance. The description never mentions the sibling tool auto_nchs_birth_rates_for_unmarried_women, which addresses a very similar birth-rate topic, nor does it explain the single-record-by-id nature versus any listing behavior. The only contextual hint is the payment/quote mechanism, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NCHS - Birth Rates for Unmarried Women by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin: United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the $0.01 per-call x402 payment requirement and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, going beyond what a simple lookup description would provide. It does not cover error behavior, but the key non-obvious behaviors are surfaced.
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 fairly compact and front-loads the dataset resource, but it repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' in both clauses. This redundancy weakens an otherwise reasonably concise definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a paid two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the resource, id-based retrieval, cost, payment method, and response attestation. It does not describe the record fields or the flow when payment is omitted, though the payment parameter schema covers that latter part.
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 50%: payment has a schema description, but the required id parameter does not. The description partially compensates by calling the id the record's identifier from the agency's dataset, but it does not explain the id format or how to source it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the exact CDC dataset and states that the tool returns one record by its identifier. It differentiates itself from other lookup tools by the specific NCHS birth-rate resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with a sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool should be used when you have a specific record identifier for this NCHS dataset. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions, which is a gap given the many similar lookup siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NCHS - Births and General Fertility Rates: United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation on every response, plus exact cost and payment rails (x402, USDC on Base). However, it does not cover error behavior for invalid IDs, response structure of the record, or whether responses should be verified, and it states the provenance/attestation fact twice rather than adding new 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 front-loads the dataset identity and is mostly scannable, but it repeats 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' nearly verbatim in both sentences. This redundancy wastes a sentence that could have described the id parameter or expected record fields.
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 lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the caller gets and how to supply a valid identifier. The cost and attestation details are covered, but where the id comes from, what the returned record contains, and failure behavior are all absent, leaving a real gap for a tool whose entire call hinges on that one parameter.
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 payment parameter is well documented in the schema ('Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote)'), but the sole required parameter, id, has no schema description and the tool description only restates it as 'one record by its identifier' with no format, source, or example. With schema coverage at only 50%, the description should compensate for the undocumented id parameter but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource ('NCHS - Births and General Fertility Rates: United States' from CDC) and states the action ('one record by its identifier'), which clearly signals a fetch-by-ID operation. It is distinguishable from sibling NCHS lookups such as auto_nchs_birth_rates_for_females_by_age_group_united_states_lookup, which target different datasets. However, the verb is implied ('lookup' + 'one record by its identifier') rather than explicitly stated like 'retrieves' or 'returns'.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description never references any of the many sibling lookup tools or explains when this births-and-fertility dataset is the right choice versus the closely related NCHS birth-rate lookups. The only contextual note is about payment ($0.001 via x402), which is a cost constraint, not a usage-routing guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NCHS - Drug Poisoning Mortality by State: United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotation are present, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does state the cost, the x402 payment mechanism, and that every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation. But it repeats those details and does not address rate limits, credential requirements beyond x402, or whether the response returns just the record fields vs. wrapper metadata.
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 repeats 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' almost verbatim in both sentences, so the second sentence mostly duplicates the first. It does front-load the dataset name and scope, but the redundancy is wasteful and could be reduced to one clear sentence with an added price detail.
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 the core aspects: dataset, record retrieval, cost, and attestation. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify what fields the returned record will contain; the agent is left to infer the record shape from the tool name rather than a direct description.
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?
For the id parameter, the description only says 'by its identifier', which adds little beyond the name and schema. The payment parameter is already described by the schema, and the description only adds '$0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base)' without explaining how to obtain or format an id. With 50% schema coverage, this is insufficient compensation for the undocumented lookup key.
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 identifies the NCHS drug poisoning mortality dataset and says the tool fetches one record by its identifier. The resource is explicit and the scope is narrowed to a single record, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling auto_*_lookup tools beyond the dataset name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one record by its identifier' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has the record's id. However, it gives no concrete conditions for when not to use it and does not point to any alternative sibling tool for search or different filtering, leaving the guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NCHS - Leading Causes of Death: United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely additive behavior: per-call pricing ($0.01 via x402/USDC on Base) and an Ed25519 attestation plus provenance chain on every response. However, it omits not-found/error behavior, idempotency, and any auth requirements, leaving the mutation-free read profile only implicitly clear.
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 provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation are stated twice — once in the first sentence and again redundantly at the end. Otherwise it is a compact two-sentence block with the dataset front-loaded, but the duplication is wasted space.
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 two-parameter single-record lookup with no output schema, the description covers pricing and response integrity, which is adequate. It stops short of specifying the identifier format or expected failure modes, so an agent still lacks some detail needed to call it confidently.
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 50%: the payment param is documented in the schema but id has no description. The description partially compensates by clarifying that id refers to a record identifier in the agency's published dataset, but gives no format, expected value shape, or example.
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 resource (one record from the NCHS Leading Causes of Death dataset) retrieved by identifier from the agency's published dataset. The dataset naming in the title distinguishes it from sibling datasets, though it never explicitly contrasts with them beyond the dataset label.
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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no alternatives among the many sibling *_lookup tools. The payment behavior is only implied via the schema's payment field description, not stated as usage guidance in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NCHS - VSRR Quarterly provisional estimates for selected birth indicators (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful operational details: every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and calls cost $0.01 via x402 on Base. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe invalid-id behavior, but 'lookup from the agency's published dataset' strongly implies a non-mutating read.
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 and front-loaded with the dataset and purpose, but it is redundant: 'with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response' appears in the first sentence and is essentially repeated in the second sentence. This repetition wastes words and slightly undermines the 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?
For a simple single-record lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: the identifier, the paid x402 mechanism with cost, and the response's attestation/provenance characteristics. It does not enumerate the record fields or explain how an identifier is obtained, but those are not blocking for correct invocation. Overall, it is adequate for a simple lookup 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 description coverage is only 50%: the 'payment' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'id' has no description beyond type and maxLength. The description partially compensates by identifying 'id' as the identifier for a record in the dataset and by reinforcing the x402 payment context. However, it provides no format, source, or example for the identifier 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 identifies a precise resource — quarterly provisional birth-indicator estimates from CDC's NCHS VSRR dataset — and says the tool returns 'one record by its identifier.' This distinguishes it from the many sibling dataset lookups by naming the exact dataset. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'looks up,' but the lookup semantics are clear from the description and tool name.
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?
Usage guidance is only implied: this is for retrieving a single record by identifier from a specific published dataset. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over a sibling tool, no search-versus-lookup distinction, and no exclusions. The dataset-specific naming helps, but the description does not actively route an agent to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NCHS - VSRR Quarterly provisional estimates for selected indicators of mortality (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful traits: the call costs $0.01 via x402, requires payment, and every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not disclose error/not-found behavior or whether the operation is purely read-only beyond the 'lookup' framing, and the provenance/attestation detail is repeated.
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 and front-loaded with the dataset and action, but it repeats the provenance/attestation claim twice in the same two sentences. This redundancy costs clarity without adding 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 paid lookup with no output schema, the description covers the core needs—record retrieval, cost, payment, and attestation—but omits what the record actually contains, how identifiers are formatted, and behavior for missing or invalid ids. An agent can invoke the tool correctly but cannot predict the response shape.
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 50%: payment is fully documented in the schema, but the required id is not. The description helps only minimally by referring to 'its identifier,' which tells the agent id is the record identifier but gives no format, example, or dataset-specific identifier context.
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 the operation explicitly—'one record by its identifier'—and names a specific resource, the NCHS VSRR quarterly provisional mortality estimates from CDC. This differentiates it from sibling tools like the NCHS birth-indicators lookup, and the mortality subject is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: an agent should call this when it holds an identifier for an NCHS VSRR mortality record and expects a single record. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools even though many sibling lookups exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NHANES Select Chronic Conditions Prevalence Estimates (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01 via x402), the payment mechanism, and that responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or idempotency, but the read-only nature is 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 efficient and front-loaded with purpose, then adds cost and attestation details. No redundant phrasing, but it repeats the provenance/attestation twice, slightly redundant.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation (ID, payment) and response highlights (provenance, attestation). It lacks details on error handling or ID format, but given simplicity, it's adequate.
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 50% (payment has a description, id does not). The description adds little beyond the schema: it says 'by its identifier' but provides no format or constraints. It does not compensate for the missing id documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('lookup') and a resource ('NHANES Select Chronic Conditions Prevalence Estimates'), making it clear it retrieves one record by identifier. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact dataset, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions. The use case is implied (lookup by ID for this specific dataset), but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NHANES Select Oral Health Prevalence Estimates (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds meaningful context: a $0.01 per-call cost via x402 (USDC on Base), and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not mention rate limits or explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'lookup' and 'one record' strongly imply a non-destructive read, and the cost/attestation details go beyond what structure provides.
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 only two sentences, but it repeats the same provenance/attestation detail twice: 'with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response' and 'response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.' The second sentence's main new information (cost and payment method) could have been merged, making the repetition a clear structural flaw.
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 2-parameter lookup, the description covers the core purpose, cost, and response features, which is adequate. However, it omits guidance on how to obtain or interpret the identifier, and it does not surface the free-quote behavior from the schema. The absence of an output schema and annotations raises the bar for contextual completeness, so this remains a minimum-viable description rather than a rich one.
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 50% — only 'payment' is described in the schema. The description mentions 'one record by its identifier' but does not add any meaning to the 'id' parameter: no format, example, or source expectation. It also fails to explain the quote behavior when payment is omitted, which is only covered by the schema's payment description. The description does not compensate for the undocumented id.
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 the exact CDC dataset ('NHANES Select Oral Health Prevalence Estimates') and the operation: retrieving 'one record by its identifier.' This is a specific verb (implicit lookup/retrieve) plus a clear resource, and it distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools by dataset and record-level operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need a specific record by identifier from this NHANES dataset. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of search-oriented siblings. The context is clear enough, but the routing guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NSSP Emergency Department Visits - COVID-19, Flu, RSV, Combined – by Demographic Category (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it is a paid x402 call ($0.01 USDC on Base), returns a provenance chain, and attaches an Ed25519 attestation on every response. This goes beyond the input schema and helps the agent understand response expectations. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'one record from a published dataset' strongly implies it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the dataset name and core lookup behavior, then gives payment and response details. It is not overly long, but the phrase 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' is repeated in both sentences, which adds redundancy without new 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 single-record lookup with only one required parameter, the description gives enough to attempt a call: dataset, id semantics, payment method, and response attestation. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the actual record fields returned, nor how to locate the id, so an agent cannot fully predict the response contents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents only 'payment' (50% coverage), leaving 'id' undocumented. The description adds that the tool fetches 'one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset,' which clarifies that the required id is a dataset record identifier. However, it does not explain the identifier format, source, or how to discover valid values, so it only partially compensates for the schema 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 identifies the exact dataset and states that the tool returns 'one record by its identifier,' which conveys a single-record lookup operation. It is distinct enough from the many sibling lookup tools because it names the specific CDC NSSP dataset. However, it lacks a direct action verb like 'retrieve' or 'look up,' so it stops short of the clearest possible phrasing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the dozens of sibling lookup tools, nor does it mention when not to use it. It implies a lookup use case only via 'one record by its identifier,' but provides no alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity - County Level Breastfeeding Initiation Rates (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost ($0.01), payment protocol (x402/USDC on Base), and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, but it omits record-not-found behavior, ID format expectations, and any read-only/permission 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 dataset title is front-loaded, which helps. However, the second sentence redundantly repeats the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation already stated in the first sentence, wasting space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more context. It explains provenance and payment, but does not describe the returned record structure or the identifier requirements, leaving gaps for an agent invoking a dataset lookup.
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 two parameters with 50% schema description coverage. The payment parameter is already documented in the schema; the description adds cost context but does not explain the required id format, expected identifier structure, or constraints beyond the schema maxLength. 'By its identifier' is too thin to compensate for the undocumented required id.
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?
Explicitly states it returns one record by identifier from a named CDC dataset, so the verb and resource are clear. The dataset name is unique among siblings, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from other lookup tools.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is given. The payment mechanic is mentioned, but not tool-selection criteria such as when to use this county-level breastfeeding dataset versus another health or CDC lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Outpatient Respiratory Illness Activity Map (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add valuable context: the tool costs $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base), and every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It also explains that omitting the payment parameter yields a free quote. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, though it is implied by the lookup nature. This partial transparency earns a 3.
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, each carrying distinct information: the dataset and action, the cost and payment method, and the payment omission behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.
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 this is a simple lookup tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is near-complete. It states the dataset, the retrieval action, the payment requirement, and the response's provenance/attestation. The only notable gap is not describing how to obtain the record identifier or what the response data itself contains (beyond the attestation), but for a straightforward lookup this is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers two parameters: id (required, string) and payment (optional, with a description). Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description does not fully compensate. It does add meaning by calling id an 'identifier' and clarifying that payment is for x402 requirements, but it does not explain how to obtain an ID or what format payment should take beyond the schema's existing description. This modest addition aligns with the moderate coverage baseline.
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 ('lookup'), the resource ('Outpatient Respiratory Illness Activity Map' from CDC), and the exact action: retrieve one record by its identifier. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or summary tools, which are also present in the sibling list. The source and dataset are named, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 the many similar lookup tools for other CDC datasets (e.g., auto_covid_19_vaccine_distribution..._lookup). It does not mention alternatives or state explicit conditions like 'use when you need outpatient respiratory illness data by ID.' The purpose is implied from the name and description, but no active routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Prevalence of Selected Measures Among Adults Aged 20 and Over: United States, 1999-2000 through 2017-2018 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and that the call costs $0.01 via x402. It does not describe what happens on invalid IDs, whether the record is returned in a specific format, or any rate limits. The provenance/attestation detail is useful and goes beyond the schema, but the description is still thin on behavioral specifics.
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 front-loads the core purpose (prevalence data lookup) and then packs in provenance, attestation, and payment details. It's dense but not bloated. The sentence is long, but every clause adds information. It loses a point for being somewhat run-on and for burying the 'one record by its identifier' action in the middle.
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 lookup tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main call flow: provide an id, optionally provide payment, get a record with provenance and attestation. However, it doesn't explain what the record contains (beyond the dataset title), how to discover valid IDs, or what the response format is. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: the 'payment' parameter is described in the schema, but 'id' is not. The description says 'one record by its identifier' which adds minimal meaning to 'id' (it's the identifier of the record). It doesn't explain the format of the id, whether it's a CDC dataset-specific ID, or how to obtain it. The payment parameter's semantics are already well covered by the schema, so the description adds little beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('one record by its identifier') and a specific resource (CDC published dataset on prevalence of selected measures among adults 20+). It clearly distinguishes this as a lookup tool by identifier, which differentiates it from sibling tools that are summaries or searches. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, and the title is long and unwieldy, so it loses a point for not being maximally crisp.
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: call with an identifier to retrieve one record. It also explains the payment flow ('Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote)') which is a form of usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Provisional Drug Overdose Deaths by Urban/Rural Classification Scheme for 12 month-ending December 2018-December 2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01 per call via x402 USDC on Base) and response contents (provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation). However, it does not cover error behavior, rate limits, or whether payment is required before receiving data, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 only two sentences and front-loads the dataset name. However, 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' is stated twice verbatim, wasting space. The structure is acceptable but not tight.
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 one-record lookup, the description provides the dataset, operation, cost, and attestation. But there is no output schema, no id format guidance, and no description of the payment flow beyond the schema note. An agent would still need to guess several details before calling confidently.
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 only 50%; only the payment parameter has a description. The description adds minimal meaning for id, saying only that it is 'an identifier' from the dataset, with no format, example, or source details. Payment semantics are left to the schema. The description does not compensate for the undocumented id parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the exact dataset (Provisional Drug Overdose Deaths by Urban/Rural Classification Scheme, CDC, December 2018-December 2020) and states the operation: retrieving one record by its identifier. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling auto_*_lookup tools by dataset topic and lookup behavior.
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. The description does not mention sibling lookup tools, conditions for selecting this dataset, or exclusions such as 'use summary endpoints instead'. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Screened-in and Screened-out Referrals (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does add useful details: every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and the call costs $0.01 via x402. However, it does not disclose behaviors like error handling, whether the record is returned in a specific format, or any access prerequisites beyond payment.
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 reasonably short and front-loads the purpose, but it repeats the 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' clause in both sentences, which is redundant. A more concise version would mention these details once and use the saved space for a usage hint.
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 id-based lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives cost, response attestation, and the dataset. However, it omits the shape of the referral record itself, error behavior, or how the provenance chain should be interpreted, leaving an agent without enough context to fully anticipate the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is only 50% (payment is documented, id is not). The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented id parameter beyond saying 'one record by its identifier' – it adds no format, source, or example for id. The payment parameter is already well-documented in the schema, and the description adds no new parameter-level meaning.
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 identifies the specific resource (Screened-in and Screened-out Referrals from HHS) and states that it returns 'one record by its identifier,' which clearly implies a single-record retrieval. It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup tools by naming the exact published dataset, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'Get' or 'Retrieve.'
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 or when not to use it. The description simply describes the operation and cost, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used only when an identifier for this specific dataset is available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TEST_RESTRUCTURED_DQS_Functional_limitation_in_adults_age_18_and_older_by_selected_characteristics_United_States_6.12.25 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that responses include a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and mentions pricing ($0.01 per call via x402 USDC on Base). However, it does not disclose failure modes, rate limits, or what happens on invalid/missing IDs. The disclosed facts are useful but incomplete.
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 that packs the dataset name, purpose, pricing, and attestation into one dense block. It is not excessively wordy but lacks structural breakdown. The tool name is already unwieldy, and the description does not help with scannability. It is adequate but not well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with only 2 parameters, the description covers the essential action (fetch by identifier), response attestation, and pricing. However, it does not explain what constitutes a valid ID, how to obtain it, or what the response structure looks like beyond provenance/attestation. Given no output schema, this is a moderate gap, but adequate for a straightforward lookup.
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 50%, with 'id' and 'payment' both having descriptions. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions 'identifier' which maps to 'id' but does not elaborate on format or constraints. The 'payment' parameter is not mentioned in the description at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the parameters, but the description does not add meaningful value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool fetches 'one record by its identifier' from a specific CDC dataset, which is a clear verb and resource. However, the tool name is extremely long and the description does not explicitly differentiate it from the many other 'auto_*_lookup' siblings beyond naming the dataset. The purpose is clear but not crisply stated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, and does not differentiate itself from the dozens of similar 'auto_*_lookup' siblings or other lookup tools in the sibling list. The agent has no context to choose this over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tests for antibodies to trachoma PGP3 antigen (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and there is a cost of $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base). This goes beyond basic lookup semantics and informs the agent about payment and response integrity features.
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 relatively short but contains redundancy: the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation are mentioned twice ('with a provenance chain...' and 'response includes a provenance chain...'). This repetition could be streamlined without losing meaning. The pricing info is useful but could be integrated more efficiently.
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 lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves (a record), the source (CDC dataset), and response features (provenance chain, attestation). It does not mention error cases or not-found behavior, but for a straightforward lookup this is acceptable. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit description of response contents.
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 50% with only the 'payment' parameter described. The description clarifies that 'id' is the record identifier, but does not add format or constraints beyond the schema's maxLength. The 'payment' parameter is already described in the schema, so the description adds marginal value over what the schema provides.
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 retrieves a single record by its identifier from a specific CDC dataset on trachoma PGP3 antibody tests. It includes the source agency and the operation type (lookup by ID), which distinguishes it from other auto_*_lookup tools that target different datasets.
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 tool is used when you need a specific record from this dataset, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other lookups or provide exclusions. It says 'one record by its identifier' which conveys the core use case, but lacks guidance on alternatives 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.
Vaccine Hesitancy for COVID-19: Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.01 per call via x402) and that every response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it omits behavior around missing identifiers, response payload contents beyond the attestation, and the fact that omitting payment returns a free quote, which is only in the payment parameter schema.
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 run-on sentence and repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' verbatim. It is compact and front-loads the dataset, but the redundancy and lack of sentence structure make it less efficient than it should be.
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 one-record lookup, the core operation and cost are stated, and the payment schema covers the quote flow. But there is no output schema and the description never explains the returned record's data fields or how to obtain a valid identifier, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 only 50%: the payment parameter has a description but id does not. The description weakly says 'by its identifier' but does not explain what id values look like, where they come from, or how they map to PUMAs, so the agent is left guessing for the one required parameter.
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 identifies a specific CDC dataset and states that the tool returns one record by its identifier, which makes the operation clear. It does not use an explicit retrieval verb, but the resource and singular-record behavior are unambiguous and distinguish it from the many sibling lookups by dataset name.
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?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling vaccine/COVID lookup tools, such as the HHS small-area vaccination survey lookups. The description only states what it does, not when to use it or what conditions would favor an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
VSRR Provisional Maternal Death Counts and Rates (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the paid per-call model ($0.01 via x402), the option to omit payment for a quote, and the provenance chain plus Ed25519 attestation on every response. It stops short of describing error behavior or exact response shape, but for a simple lookup this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences and front-loads the purpose before payment details. However, the phrase 'a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' appears verbatim in both sentences, which is redundant and slightly bloats an otherwise lean definition.
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 lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, cost, payment flow, and response attestation. It does not describe the contents of the returned record beyond the implication of the dataset name, nor does it address what happens when an id is not found or invalid, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only describes the payment parameter; the id parameter has no description. The description identifies id as the dataset identifier, adding some meaning, but it does not explain the id's format, origin, or how to discover valid values. Payment semantics are already in the schema, so the description adds little new for that parameter.
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 retrieves a single record by its identifier from the CDC VSRR Provisional Maternal Death Counts and Rates dataset, using a specific verb and named resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely named siblings like auto_vsrr_state_and_national_provisional_counts_for_live_births_deaths_and_infant_dea_lookup, so it misses the full distinction.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you need one specific record by ID from this CDC dataset. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative lookup to choose, and with dozens of similar sibling tools, such routing would be valuable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
VSRR - State and National Provisional Counts for Live Births, Deaths, and Infant Deaths (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and there is a $0.01 fee via x402. However, it does not disclose error behavior, possible side effects, or rate limits, and the read-only nature is only 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 short and front-loaded with the dataset name and operation, but it repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice. This redundancy makes it less crisp than it could be, though it remains relatively compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup with one required parameter, the description covers the core purpose, pricing, and response attestation. However, with no output schema, it does not explain the structure of the returned record or any error cases, leaving some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (payment has a description, id does not). The description clarifies that 'id' is the record identifier, but does not explain its format or source. It adds marginal value but does not fully compensate for the missing id description.
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 identifies the specific resource ('VSRR - State and National Provisional Counts for Live Births, Deaths, and Infant Deaths') and the operation ('one record by its identifier'). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool it is not.
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 the many similar sibling lookup tools, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites beyond having an identifier. Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'one record by its identifier'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Among Pregnant Women 18-49 Years, by Race and Ethnicity (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It adds the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation on every response and the $0.01 x402 payment requirement, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe error/not-found 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 a single front-loaded sentence and is not overly long, but it repeats the provenance-chain and Ed25519-attestation detail twice. The redundancy adds no new information and could be trimmed without losing 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what fields the returned record contains or how the provenance/attestation is delivered. It also omits error behavior, making the tool only partially specified for an agent that needs to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents only the payment parameter; id has no description and schema coverage is 50%. The description only says 'one record by its identifier,' offering no format, example, or origin for the id value. This is insufficient compensation for the undocumented id parameter.
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 identifies the resource (CDC weekly COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women 18-49 by race/ethnicity) and the operation ('one record by its identifier'). It conveys that this is a single-record lookup, which separates it from aggregate or summary tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many similarly named lookup siblings, such as the influenza or general pregnant-women vaccination lookups. The description states what it does but not the conditions that make it the right choice or any situations where it should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage among Pregnant Women by Race and Ethnicity (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the provenance chain, Ed25519 attestation on every response, and the $0.01 x402 payment requirement. However, it does not mention read-only status, authorization prerequisites, or rate limits.
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 and front-loaded with the dataset and action, but it repeats the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation detail twice in the same description. The repetition wastes space without adding 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 simple 2-parameter lookup, the description, combined with the schema, is mostly sufficient to invoke the tool: it states the source, the identifier-based lookup, the response attestation, and the payment mechanism. The main gap is the lack of any guidance on what a valid `id` looks like or how it is obtained.
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 50%, with only the payment parameter explained. The description adds little beyond the obvious: it calls id an 'identifier' but does not say what format it takes or where an agent can obtain a valid id from the CDC dataset. The critical parameter remains underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource (CDC weekly COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women by race/ethnicity) and a precise action (retrieve one record by its identifier). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling auto_*_lookup tools, even without naming an alternative.
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 tool is for single-record lookups by identifier from this specific CDC dataset, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Cumulative Doses (in Millions) of Influenza Vaccines Distributed by Season, United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.01 per call), payment method (x402 USDC on Base), and response attestation (Ed25519). It does not mention rate limits, data limits, or side effects, but for a read-only lookup this is acceptable.
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 with some repetition of 'provenance chain' and 'attestation' (mentioned twice). It front-loads the resource and action but could be tightened to avoid 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 does not explain the response body beyond the attestation, and since there is no output schema, the agent is left unaware of what record data will be returned. It also does not mention how to obtain an id, though that is implied by the dataset context. This is a significant gap for a lookup 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?
The description clarifies that 'id' is the identifier for the record, adding meaning to a parameter that lacks a schema description. It does not add detail on payment beyond the schema's own description, which already covers it. With schema coverage at 50%, the description partially compensates.
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 retrieves one record by its identifier from a specific CDC dataset about weekly cumulative influenza vaccine doses, naming the resource and action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling lookup tools beyond the dataset name, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar lookups, no exclusions, and no alternatives mentioned. The description is silent on selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the dataset name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Cumulative Influenza Vaccination Coverage, by Flu Season and Race/Ethnicity, Medicare Fee-For-Service Beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only mentions that responses include a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and that the call costs money. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or any rate limits. The provenance/attestation is a useful trait, but the overall disclosure is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation support.
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 verbose and repetitive. It mentions 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice (once in the first sentence and again at the end), and the cost information is stated after the colon, adding clutter. The core purpose could be stated in one short sentence. The redundancy undermines conciseness and makes it harder to scan quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the response contains (e.g., the fields of the vaccination record). Instead, it only describes the provenance and attestation aspects, leaving the actual data content unexplained. An agent cannot predict what information will be returned beyond the metadata, making the description incomplete for correct invocation and interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only documents the 'payment' parameter (description present), giving 50% coverage. The description does not elaborate on the meaning of 'id' – it only implies it is the record identifier through the phrase 'by its identifier'. It provides no format, source, or example for the id, nor any additional clarification for 'payment'. Thus it fails to compensate for the schema gap and adds no value beyond what the schema already states.
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 retrieves 'one record by its identifier' from a clearly named CDC dataset (Weekly Cumulative Influenza Vaccination Coverage). This is a specific verb-resource combination that matches the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling lookup tools except through the dataset name itself, and the phrasing is slightly awkward, so it is not a full 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It does not mention any exclusion conditions, nor does it reference other lookup tools for searches or different filters. The only practical note is the cost and payment method, which is operational, not usage context. No 'use this when...' or 'use that instead...' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Cumulative Influenza Vaccination Coverage, Children 6 months through 17 years, United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and that calls cost $0.01 via x402 (USDC on Base), which are material behavioral and pricing facts beyond the schema.
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 sentence that front-loads the dataset and operation, but it repeats the provenance-chain/Ed25519-attestation clause twice. It could be tightened into a cleaner two-sentence structure 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 simple single-record lookup with one required parameter, the description covers the source dataset, the operation, the payment mechanism, and the response's attestation characteristics. There is no output schema, so the response description is helpful, though the actual vaccination coverage fields are not enumerated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes only the payment parameter; the id parameter lacks an explanatory description. The description adds that id identifies a single record from the CDC published dataset, which is helpful, but it does not explain the id format, how it should be obtained, or how the payment parameter interacts with the lookup beyond what the schema already says.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific operation — retrieving one record by its identifier — from a precisely named CDC dataset for weekly cumulative influenza vaccination coverage among children aged 6 months through 17 years in the United States. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic lookups and from sibling tools covering other datasets or aggregate views.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context: this is a point lookup by record identifier from the CDC published dataset, not a search or aggregate query. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is strongly implied by 'one record by its identifier.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Cumulative Influenza Vaccination Coverage Map and Comparison Between 2025–26 and 2024–25 by Jurisdiction, Adults 18 Years and Older (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: single-record lookup by identifier, a provenance chain plus Ed25519 attestation on every response, and the paid model ($0.01 per call via x402, USDC on Base). It says nothing about error behavior, what an invalid id yields, rate limits, or how the signed payload should be verified, so disclosure is partial.
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, reasonably front-loaded, but the clause 'with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response' is repeated verbatim in both sentences, and the enormous snake_case tool name duplicates the description's opening. Wasted repetition, though the text remains short.
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, and the description does summarize what comes back (a single record plus provenance and attestation), which is the main completeness win. However, for a paid, single-record lookup with no annotations and an undocumented id field, it omits how to obtain/verify the attestation, what happens on payment failure, and any distinction from its many sibling datasets.
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 50%: the payment parameter is documented in the schema as the x402 X-PAYMENT header with a free-quote fallback, while id is bare except for maxLength. The description adds 'one record by its identifier', clarifying that id is the dataset record key, which partially compensates for the undocumented id but adds no format or example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (retrieve one record) and resource (influenza vaccination coverage dataset by jurisdiction), and spells out the dataset title fully enough to distinguish it from sibling CDC lookups such as auto_weekly_cumulative_influenza_vaccination_coverage_by_flu_season_and_race_ethnicit_lookup. It stops short of 5 because the differentiation is by dataset title repetition rather than by an explicit contrast with any sibling.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives among the dozens of near-identical auto_* CDC dataset lookups. An agent is left to infer everything from the long dataset name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Cumulative Percentage of Children Ages 6 Months -17 Years Who Are Up to date with COVID-19 Vaccines by Selected Demographics and by Season, United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost ($0.01 per call), payment mechanism (x402/USDC on Base), and response attestation features. However, it omits obvious behavioral details such as error handling and that it is a read-only operation, and it redundantly repeats the provenance/attestation statement.
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 that front-loads the dataset name, which is useful for identification but also unwieldy. It contains redundancy by mentioning the provenance chain and attestation twice, making it less concise than it could be.
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 schemaboolanians, and the description only mentions the provenance/attestation in the response, not the actual record data. The identifier parameter lacks any detail on what it looks like or where to find it. For a simple lookup this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents 'payment' clearly, but 'id' has no description. The tool description adds only that the id is the record's identifier, which is minimal and does not explain format or source, failing to compensate for the 50% schema description 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 the resource (the CDC weekly cumulative percentage dataset) and the operation ('one record by its identifier'), making it a lookup. It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup tools by naming the exact dataset, though it does not explicitly say 'fetches' or 'retrieves'.
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?
Usage is implied: the tool returns a single record given an identifierches. No alternatives are mentioned and no explicit 'use when' guidance is provided, but the dataset reference makes the intended context reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Cumulative RSV Vaccination Coverage and Intent, Overall, by Selected Demographics and Jurisdiction, Among Adults 75 and Older and 50-74 Years with High-Risk Conditions Ev… (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and there is a $0.01 per-call cost via x402. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid IDs, or any rate limits or auth requirements beyond payment.
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 verbose and repetitive, mentioning 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice. The leading sentence is a long run-on that mixes the dataset title with the tool's function, and the truncation ('Ev…') adds confusion. It is not efficiently structured or 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 simple lookup with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned record contains, how to handle missing IDs, or how this tool differs from the many similar CDC lookup siblings. The payment and attestation details are useful, but the agent is left without enough information to confidently select and invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is 50%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. The 'id' parameter has no schema description and the tool description only says 'by its identifier', without explaining the format or source of that identifier. The 'payment' parameter is described in the schema, but the description does not elaborate on it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the operation ('one record by its identifier') and the resource (a specific CDC dataset on RSV vaccination coverage and intent). The dataset name differentiates it from sibling lookup tools, though the verb is implied rather than explicit and the dataset name is truncated with 'Ev…'.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many sibling lookup tools. The only implicit signal is the dataset name in the tool name, but the description does not specify the condition for selecting this tool (e.g., 'when you have an ID from this dataset') or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Cumulative RSV Vaccination Coverage, by Race and Ethnicity, Medicare Fee-For-Service Beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, United States, Data Source: Centers for Medicare & Medi… (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that each call costs $0.01 via x402 and that responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, invalid-ID behavior, rate limits, or error handling, so transparency is only partial.
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 long run-on sentence that repeats the provenance/attestation clause twice. Important details like dataset scope, payment, and lookup behavior are buried in a single dense block, and the data source string is truncated mid-word.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description omits what the returned record fields look like, how to construct or discover a valid id, and what happens if the id is not found. It covers dataset identity and payment, but not enough for confident invocation in unfamiliar contexts.
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 50%, and the 'id' parameter has no schema description. The description only says 'one record by its identifier', which largely restates the purpose rather than explaining the id format, source, or how to obtain a valid value. The payment parameter is already described by 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 identifies a specific resource (CDC/Medicare weekly cumulative RSV vaccination coverage by race/ethnicity for ages 65+) and a specific operation: retrieve one record by its identifier. This makes it clear this is a lookup tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the many sibling dataset lookup tools.
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 implies use when you need a single record from this specific published dataset and provides payment-related guidance (omit payment to receive a free quote). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing from the dataset name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Differences in Cumulative Influenza Vaccination Coverage and Comparison Between 2024-25 and 2023-24 Among Adults 18 Years, Overall, by Selected Demographics (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and that the call costs $0.01 via x402. This is useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, though 'one record by its identifier' implicitly suggests a lookup, and it omits potential auth requirements or rate limits.
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 verbose and redundant. It repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' twice, and the opening is a long descriptive phrase that could be trimmed. The essential information (that it's a lookup with payment and attestation) is buried under repetition, reducing clarity and front-loading value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description conveys that a single record is returned along with provenance and attestation. It names the dataset, so an agent can infer the record contents. However, it does not describe the record structure, fields, or any pagination/limit details, and the output format is not specified. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% because the 'id' parameter has no description. The description compensates slightly by saying 'one record by its identifier,' clarifying that 'id' is the record identifier. However, it does not explain the format, source, or how to obtain the ID, nor does it elaborate on the 'payment' parameter beyond its schema description. The description adds marginal value but does not fully fill the schema 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 tool fetches 'one record by its identifier' from a specific CDC dataset, and names the dataset explicitly (weekly differences in cumulative influenza vaccination coverage between 2024-25 and 2023-24 among adults). This is a precise verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools for other datasets.
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. It does not mention that this is for the specific influenza dataset or that sibling tools cover other datasets. An agent would have to infer from the name alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Differences in Cumulative Percentage of Children Ages 6 Months -17 Years who are up to date with the updated 2023-24 COVID-19 Vaccine, by Selected Demographics (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the per-call price, the payment rail (x402, USDC on Base), and that every response carries a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not cover failure behavior for invalid identifiers or confirm the read-only nature explicitly, 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?
The description is front-loaded with the long dataset title and then repeats 'provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation' verbatim twice, wasting a sentence. The operational content is buried behind the title string.
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 no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail. It covers cost and attestation but says nothing about the shape of the returned record (fields, format) or what happens on a bad id, leaving a genuine gap for a no-output-schema 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 50%: the 'payment' param is documented in the schema, but 'id' has no description there. The phrase 'one record by its identifier' supplies the missing meaning for 'id', so the description does add value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial 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 names the exact dataset (Weekly Differences in Cumulative Percentage of Children Ages 6 Months-17 Years ... 2023-24 COVID-19 Vaccine) and states the operation: 'one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset.' The verb+resource is clear and the dataset name is specific enough to differentiate it from the ~30 other CDC lookup siblings. It falls short of 5 only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many near-identical dataset 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling lookup tools, and no stated prerequisites beyond needing an identifier. The cost note ('$0.01 per call') hints at a usage condition but is framed as pricing, not as selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Differences in Cumulative RSV Vaccination Coverage Among Adults 75 and Older and 60-74 Years with High-Risk Conditions Ever Vaccinated with RSV Vaccine, Overall, by Selec… (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation and that calls cost $0.01 via x402. However, it repeats the provenance/attestation phrase and does not mention ID format, error behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only safety.
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 run-on sentence that repeats the provenance/attestation clause twice and trails off with an ellipsis in the dataset title. While the information is short, the redundancy and truncation make it unpolished and less scannable.
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 2-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description leaves key details unexplained: what the returned record looks like, how to obtain/specify the id, and whether any prerequisites exist. The provenance and payment details are useful but do not make the tool fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers only the payment parameter (50% coverage); the required id parameter has no description. The description only says 'by its identifier,' giving no clue about what identifier format to use or where to find it, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema field.
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 identifies a specific CDC dataset and the action as 'one record by its identifier,' which clearly establishes a lookup-by-ID operation. It is unambiguous and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling lookup tools beyond the dataset name in the tool name.
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 choose this tool over the many sibling auto_*_lookup tools, nor are any prerequisites or alternatives mentioned. The only implied use case is retrieving a record by identifier from this specific dataset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Influenza Vaccination Coverage Among Pregnant Women 18-49 Years, by Race and Ethnicity (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose some behavioral traits: every response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and calls cost $0.01 via x402. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens on missing IDs, or the response format beyond the attestation, leaving gaps for an 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 reasonably short, but it redundantly mentions the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation twice (in the first and second sentences), wasting words. The pricing and x402 details are useful but could be merged more concisely.
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 two-parameter lookup, the description covers the core function, dataset, pricing, and attestation. However, it lacks details about the response record's contents, error behavior for invalid IDs, and how the attestation should be verified—important information given there is no output schema. The description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: the payment parameter is described in the schema, but id is not. The description adds minimal semantic value by calling id 'the identifier', but does not explain its format or origin beyond that, nor does it elaborate on how payment interacts with the call. The description does not compensate for the undocumented id parameter sufficiently.
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 function: retrieving 'one record by its identifier' from a specific CDC dataset on weekly influenza vaccination coverage among pregnant women 18-49 by race and ethnicity. It names the resource precisely, but does not explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling lookup tools (e.g., cumulative coverage tools), so it falls short of a 5.
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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes the lookup action without suggesting a use case or directing the agent to sibling tools for other queries, so agents must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Vaccination Coverage among Pregnant or Recently Pregnant Women 18-49 Years, by Race and Ethnicity (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation per response, and the x402 payment pricing ($0.01/call, USDC on Base), but omits what happens on invalid ids or whether attestation is guaranteed.
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 run-on sentence front-loads an enormous dataset title, then redundantly repeats provenance/attestation ('with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response... response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation'). The repetition is wasted space.
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 2-param, no-output-schema lookup, the essentials (identity of dataset, payment model, attestation) are present, but missing id semantics and the duplicated attestation text leave it only adequate.
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 50%: the 'payment' parameter is documented in the schema while 'id' is not. The description adds the payment/pricing context and the free-quote fallback, partially compensating, but adds no meaning for the required id parameter.
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 identifies a specific dataset (RSV vaccination coverage among pregnant/recently pregnant women, by race/ethnicity) and states it retrieves one record by identifier. The dataset scope distinguishes it from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to prefer for related queries.
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 implies a single-record lookup by identifier and notes the free-quote behavior when payment is omitted, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the many parallel *_lookup siblings (e.g. the maternal RSV infant-protection tool).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly United States COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by State - ARCHIVED (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention): one record by its identifier from the agency's published dataset, with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation on every response, the $0.01 cost, and the x402 payment mechanism on the Base network via USDC. This meaningfully informs the agent beyond what the schema alone states.
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 only two sentences and front-loads the dataset and operation. However, the phrase 'with a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation on every response' is repeated almost verbatim in the second sentence, making the description slightly redundant.
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, so the description should clarify what the response contains. It does mention provenance and attestation, but not the record fields themselves, the exact meaning of 'identifier', or payment flow details beyond the free-quote behavior. For a simple paid lookup tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%: 'payment' is documented but 'id' is not. The description adds that the operation fetches one record by identifier, which partially compensates for the undocumented 'id'. The payment details overlap with the schema's existing description, so the description adds limited new parameter-level meaning.
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 identifies the resource: the archived CDC weekly United States COVID-19 cases and deaths by state dataset. It states the operation ('one record by its identifier') and adds the 'ARCHIVED' qualifier, which helps distinguish it from many similar CDC COVID-19 lookup siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the right tool when a caller has a specific record identifier from this archived CDC dataset, and the payment note indicates how to trigger a quote. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, despite many sibling lookup tools covering similar CDC datasets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US bank profile from the FDIC institution directory: charter class, regulator, headquarters, established date and active status, by FDIC certificate number. $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payment requirement ($0.005 per call via x402) and the response characteristics (provenance chain, Ed25519 attestation), which is valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or error handling, but the core behaviors are covered.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose, then lists key fields, input method, and cost/attestation details. No redundancy or filler. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a lookup tool with no output schema, the description lists the expected return fields and notes the attestation. It covers the essential calling pattern (by certificate number) and payment flow. It could mention that omitting payment returns a free quote, but that is in the schema description, so overall it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50% (only 'payment' has a description). The description clarifies that 'id' is the FDIC certificate number, adding meaning the schema lacks. It also explains the payment parameter's behavior indirectly by mentioning the cost and the x402 mechanism, but the schema already says 'Omit to receive the payment requirements'. The description adds value for the id and reinforces payment context.
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 ('US bank profile from the FDIC institution directory') and resource, listing the key fields returned (charter class, regulator, headquarters, established date, active status) and the input key (FDIC certificate number). Clearly distinguishes from the many sibling lookup tools, which are mostly unrelated domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage: this is the tool to call when you need a bank profile by FDIC certificate number. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the domain is so specific that the context is clear. Could be improved by noting that this is for US banks only and that other tools exist for other financial data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US Congress bill record by congress, type and number: title, sponsor, latest action, policy area and origin chamber. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the (absent) annotations by disclosing the per-call cost ($0.001 via x402) and that the response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation. This informs the agent about side effects and response characteristics, though it does not mention side effects like write operations (which are unlikely for a lookup).
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, tightly packed sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, key output fields, cost, and response details without any redundancy or extraneous information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 provides useful context about the response (provenance, attestation) and cost, but it lacks essential details about how to form the 'id' parameter, which is critical for making a call. There is no output schema, so the exact response structure is unknown, but the description partially compensates by listing the fields returned. Overall, it is not fully complete for an agent to use without additional assumptions.
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 required parameter 'id' is not explained at all in the description, and the schema only provides a maxLength constraint without describing the expected format (e.g., how congress, type, and number should be encoded). The optional 'payment' parameter is described in the schema, but the description does not clarify the id construction, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.
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 looks up a US Congress bill record by congress, type, and number, and lists the specific fields returned (title, sponsor, latest action, policy area, origin chamber). This is precise and distinguishes it from the many sibling lookup tools that target different datasets.
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 clear usage for retrieving Congress bill data without ambiguity, and the tool name reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of a sibling or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of full explicitness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US Consumer Price Index by month from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: index level and series metadata for the national all-items series. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does mention the paid x402 call, the $0.001 cost, the provenance chain, and the Ed25519 attestation. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe error behavior, or mention rate limits or authorization requirements.
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 dense sentence contains no filler and front-loads the core subject, source, data content, cost, and response extras. It could be broken into shorter units for readability, but every piece of information 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 tool with no output schema and a required parameter lacking semantic detail, the description omits essential calling context such as accepted year formats and the expected response structure. The cost and attestation details are useful, but the agent is left to guess how to supply the required parameter.
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 50%; the payment parameter is described in the schema, but the required 'year' parameter has only a name and maxLength. The description does not explain accepted year formats or how monthly granularity relates to the year value, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 identifies the tool as monthly US CPI from BLS, specifying the national all-items series and noting index level plus series metadata. It lacks an explicit imperative verb and does not contrast with siblings, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling economic data tools such as state_gdp_series or electricity_retail_series, and there are no exclusions or alternative conditions. The phrase 'by month' only implies time granularity, not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US Consumer Product Safety Commission recall by recall number: hazard, remedy, units affected and recall date. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses a paid call ($0.001 per call via x402), and claims the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, which gives the agent important execution expectations. It does not mention rate limits or explicitly guarantee read-only behavior, but a lookup resource implies this and the cost/authenticity details add enough 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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the resource and key, enumerates the main output fields, then packs pricing and provenance into the tail. There is no fluff or duplicated schema content, and it remains easily parsable by an agent.
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 modest complexity of a lookup by one ID and no output schema, the description covers the key fields, cost, and authenticity markers. It does not give an example of the recall-number format nor possible error cases, but the tool is simple enough that this does not block correct invocation, especially with the payment guidance in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers payment well (description in the parameter) and id only as a maxLength string. The tool description links id to the recall number, covering the gap; this is meaningful. It does not explain the payment string format or its omission behavior beyond what the schema already says, so the description adds only partial 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 names the precise resource (US CPSC recall by recall number) and the primary retrieval key, and lists the fields: hazard, remedy, units affected and recall date. This clearly distinguishes it from cpsc_recall_monthly_summary (aggregate by month) and fda_recall_lookup (different agency) without needing to open schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by recall / ', strongly implies the tool should be used when the agent has a specific recall number, but it never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as cpsc_recall_monthly_summary, nor does it give a when-not-to-use condition. There is no explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
CPSC recalls per month, counted by hazard type over the current recall dataset. $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates output includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation and mentions pricing, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or whether it has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the primary function in the first sentence and adding pricing/response details in the second. No unnecessary words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides enough context for a simple summary tool: what is counted, the grouping dimension, the dataset scope, pricing, and key response elements. It lacks a detailed output schema but the summary output can be reasonably inferred.
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, payment, is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 the tool provides monthly CPSC recall counts by hazard type over the current recall dataset, which is a specific summary function. It does not explicitly mention a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explain when to use this tool versus related lookup or summary tools, such as cpsc_recall_lookup. It includes payment and response details but lacks guidance on the appropriate context or alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NVD CVE detail by CVE identifier: description, CVSS metrics, CWE mapping and published/modified dates. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cost ($0.001 per call), the payment rail (x402 on USDC/Base), and extra response elements (provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation). This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it omits error behavior and rate limits. The transparency is strong but not exhaustive.
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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose, then appends pricing and response extras. Every clause adds value, with 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?
For a two-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, this description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, cost, payment flow, and notable response characteristics. It does not describe error handling or rate limits, but these are minor for a simple CVE lookup, and the description is sufficient for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke 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?
Schema coverage is 50% (payment is already described in the schema, while id has no description). The description adds critical meaning by clarifying that 'id' is the CVE identifier, which is the main parameter. However, it does not specify the exact CVE format (e.g., CVE-YYYY-NNNNN) beyond maxLength, and payment details are repeated from the schema. It compensates well for the gap but not completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('detail'), the resource (NVD CVE), and the lookup key (CVE identifier), while enumerating the returned data (description, CVSS metrics, CWE mapping, dates). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as kev_status_by_cve or cve_published_daily_summary, 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 when to use the tool – when a user needs a single CVE's detailed data by identifier – but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like kev_status_by_cve (for KEV status only) or cve_published_daily_summary (for a daily digest). The usage is clear enough not to mislead, but the guidance is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
CVEs published per day from the NVD feed, counted by CVSS severity band. $0.02 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reveal important traits: the call costs $0.02 via x402/USDC on Base, and the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not mention read-only status or rate limits, but the payment and response-evidence behavior is meaningfully disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and aggregation, and the second adds essential cost and response-evidence details. The highest-value information is 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 optional parameter and no output schema—the description covers source, aggregation, cost, and response attestation. It could be more explicit about the exact date window or return shape, but those are minor omissions for a daily summary 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?
The single payment parameter is already fully described in the schema, including the omit-to-get-a-quote behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the dollar amount and settlement network, which complements the schema without needing to repeat it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource (NVD CVEs published per day) and a specific action (counting by CVSS severity band). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cve_detail_lookup and kev_status_by_cve, which operate on individual CVEs or KEV status rather than aggregate daily summaries.
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 intended use is implied by the description: use this when you need a daily aggregate of published CVEs segmented by severity. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations title status: latest amendment date and issue date for one CFR title. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a per-call cost ($0.001 via x402 on Base) and mentions that the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and does a good job of exposing non-obvious behaviors like payment and cryptographic attestation.
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 packs in the core function, pricing, and output details without redundancy or unnecessary words. It is concise and easy to parse.
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 provided, but the description specifies the expected data (latest amendment date and issue date) and mentions the provenance chain and attestation, which gives a reasonable understanding of the response. It lacks details on error conditions or output formatting, but for an agent deciding to call, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not directly explain the 'id' parameter, but the phrase 'for one CFR title' implies that 'id' is a CFR title identifier, adding some meaning to the schema. The 'payment' parameter is already described in the schema as an encoded x402 header, so no additional meaning is added by the description. Overall, parameter semantics are only partially covered.
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 returns latest amendment date and issue date for one CFR title, which is a specific and concrete function. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools that cover other domains like AQI, CPI, or FDA recalls.
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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternative lookup tools. It implies the use case for eCFR title status, but no explicit guidance is given on selection criteria or when not to use it. The pricing and attestation details are behavioral rather than usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US EIA retail electricity series for one state and sector: price, revenue and sales by period. $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious operational details: cost per call ($0.005 via x402 on Base), a payment mechanism, and that responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not cover error cases or data-behavior nuances (e.g., how missing data is represented), but it provides useful behavioral context beyond a bare purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero filler. The description front-loads the core domain and scope, then efficiently covers cost, payment currency, and response attestation. Every clause adds 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?
The tool is a paid data fetch with no output schema and only minimal parameter guidance. While it mentions provenance and attestation in the response, it never describes what the actual data payload looks like (e.g., columns like date, price, revenue, sales), nor does it explain how to construct valid state/sector entities or acceptable date formats. Absent annotations and output schema, this leaves the agent under-informed on several key operational aspects.
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 25%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented start, end, and entity parameters. The phrase 'for one state and sector: price, revenue and sales by period' gives some context that 'entity' refers to a state and sector, and 'by period' hints at start/end, but it does not explain the encoding, valid formats, or how to combine state and sector, leaving too much ambiguity given the low schema 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 names a specific resource (US EIA retail electricity data), its scope (one state and sector), and contents (price, revenue, sales by period). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like state_gdp_series and cpi_us_monthly, and from the long list of lookup tools.
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, no exclusions or alternative suggestions. The domain is implicitly clear from the title, but the intended context selection criteria is absent, so the agent is left to infer usability from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US FDA enforcement action by recall number: classification, reason for recall, distribution pattern, recalling firm and current status. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description transparently discloses the per-call cost, the x402 payment mechanism, the optional free-quote behavior, and that responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. No annotations contradict these 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 compact, front-loads the purpose, and packs meaningful details about cost and response attributes 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?
The description covers what data is returned, the payment flow, and the attestation/provenance aspects. It does not specify output format or error cases, but given the simple lookup nature and lack of an output schema, it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The required 'id' parameter is explained as a recall number in the tool description, and the optional 'payment' parameter has a dedicated schema description explaining its encoding and omission behavior. Both parameters are covered adequately.
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 looks up US FDA enforcement actions by recall number and lists the key data fields returned. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like fda_recall_state_summary and cpsc_recall_lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a recall number is known and names the resource, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over fda_recall_state_summary or other recall tools. Overall guidance is sufficient but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
FDA recall counts for one US state, grouped by classification and product type, computed over the current enforcement dataset. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It does reveal billing cost ($0.01 per call via x402 USDC on Base), the provenance chain, and an Ed25519 attestation. However, it omits crucial behavior: how to specify the target state, whether the call is purely read-only, and what happens if the required payment is omitted besides 'get a free quote.' The ambiguity around the state parameter is a significant undocumented behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value—functional scope, computation basis, pricing, and response features. There is no filler or duplication of the schema.
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 optional parameter and no assisted parameters, the description should let an agent confidently invoke it. It fails to do so because the stated purpose references 'one US state' while the schema exposes only a payment value, leaving the agent with no way to choose the state or learn the invocation flow. The response is described in some general terms (provenance, attestation) but the core use case remains unclear.
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 for the only parameter (payment) is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by stating the cost, the payment protocol (USDC on Base), and that the response includes provenance and attestation. It does not explain how the state is encoded into the payment header, which would have justified a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'FDA recall counts for one US state, grouped by classification and product type.' This clearly conveys what the tool returns and gives a concrete scope. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, but the phrase 'for one US state' plus aggregation detail helps separate it from lookup-style siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage ('when you need state-level recall summaries') but provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as fda_recall_lookup. More critically, it does not mention how the 'one US state' is selected given the input schema exposes only a payment parameter. An agent would likely not know how to request a specific state's summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US Federal Register document by document number: title, agencies, document type, publication date and effective date. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the cost per call and the payment method (x402 USDC on Base), as well as the inclusion of a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation in the response. It also implies that omitting the payment parameter returns a free quote, as detailed in the schema. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden and does a good job.
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 conveys the core purpose, the returned fields, cost, and response extras without any fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, the description lists the key data fields to expect (title, agencies, document type, publication date, effective date) and notes the provenance and attestation in the response. It does not detail error handling or the exact payment flow, but for a simple lookup it is largely 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?
The schema provides a description for the 'payment' parameter but not for 'id.' The tool description clarifies that the document is looked up by number, so the id parameter is understood to be that number. The payment parameter description in the schema explains the omit-to-quote behavior, which is further supported by the tool description.
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 retrieves a US Federal Register document by its document number and lists the fields returned (title, agencies, document type, publication date, effective date). It also mentions the payment and attestation, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 tool is for looking up a specific document by its number, which is clear from the phrase 'by document number.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this with any sibling tools or state when to use it over alternatives, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
HUD Fair Market Rent for one metro or county area: rent by bedroom count for the current fiscal year. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the cost ($0.001 per call), payment via x402, and that the response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation. This is useful behavioral information, though it does not mention whether the tool has side effects or requires specific permissions. Given it's a read-only lookup, the provided details are adequate but not exhaustive.
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 immediately states the core purpose and then provides essential extras (cost, payment method, response features). There is no fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return format. It mentions rent by bedroom count and the presence of a provenance chain, but does not specify how the rent data is structured or how the id should be formatted. For a simple lookup, this is a minor gap, but it could leave the agent unsure about how to construct the id.
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 50%: only the 'payment' parameter has a description in the schema. The description itself does not explain the 'id' parameter or its format—it only says 'one metro or county area', which is vague. The description does not add enough to compensate for the schema's lack of detail on the required 'id' field.
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: retrieving HUD Fair Market Rent for a specific metro or county area, with rent by bedroom count for the current fiscal year. This is specific and distinguishes it from a search tool (fmr_area_search). The verb 'lookup' and resource 'Fair Market Rent' make the function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling tool 'fmr_area_search' that likely serves a different purpose, but no distinction is made. It does mention the payment process, but not usage context or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to choose this over a search tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search HUD Fair Market Rent areas by name and return matching areas with their rent schedules. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the per-call cost ($0.001 via x402), and mentions the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or any side effects, though a search is implicitly non-destructive. It also lacks rate limits or error behavior, but the disclosed cost and response format add 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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds cost and response details. Every clause earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
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 content (matching areas, rent schedules) and additional response elements (provenance chain, attestation). It does not mention result limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens with no matches, which could be useful for an agent. However, the tool has only two parameters and is a straightforward search, so the description covers the essential calling 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 50%: only 'payment' has a description, while 'q' lacks one. The description states 'by name' which maps to 'q', but does not add syntax, format, or additional meaning beyond that. It does not compensate for the missing schema description of 'q', nor does it explain the payment encoding beyond what the schema already says. The description adds marginal value over 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?
States a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('HUD Fair Market Rent areas'), and outcome ('return matching areas with their rent schedules'). It clearly identifies the primary function, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling fmr_area_lookup, which may offer a more direct lookup capability. The mention of payment and attestation adds secondary context but does not weaken 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling fmr_area_lookup or any other alternative. The description implies it is for searching by name, but does not state when to prefer it over a lookup tool or any exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities status for one CVE: whether it is on the KEV catalog, the due date, required action and ransomware-campaign flag. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation are included in the response and that a per-call fee applies. There are no annotations to contradict these details. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of a status lookup implies no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that packs all essential information without verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, what it returns, and the payment requirement. It could mention error conditions or response format details, but it is adequate for invoking 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?
The payment parameter is explicitly described as an encoded x402 header with the option to omit for a quote. The 'id' parameter is not described in the schema, but the tool description clarifies it is a CVE identifier. Overall, both parameters are understood from the combined description.
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 function: retrieving CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities status for a single CVE. It specifies the exact data points returned (on KEV list, due date, required action, ransomware flag) and distinguishes it from general CVE 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?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for KEV status) and provides explicit guidance on the payment parameter: omitting it returns a free quote. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like cve_detail_lookup, though the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Active US National Weather Service alerts for one state, aggregated by severity, urgency and event type. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the cost ('$0.001 per call via x402'), the payment mechanism (USDC on Base), and response traits ('provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation'). It also hints at a two-step flow via the payment parameter. This goes beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't mention rate limits or auth details beyond the payment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and scope, then adds pricing and response details. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is 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?
The description is incomplete in a critical way: it claims the tool provides alerts 'for one state' but the input schema has no parameter to specify which state. There is no explanation of how the state is determined (e.g., via the payment header, user location, or some default). This missing piece is essential for correct invocation. Additionally, the output format is only vaguely described (aggregated by severity, urgency, event type), though no output schema exists. Given this critical gap, the description is inadequate for an agent to call 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?
The schema already fully describes the only parameter (payment) with 100% coverage: 'Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements.' The description adds cost information but does not clarify the parameter's format or usage beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.
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: 'Active US National Weather Service alerts for one state, aggregated by severity, urgency and event type.' It specifies the verb (get/aggregate), the resource (NWS alerts), and the scope (one state). The aggregation criteria are explicit, and the tool is clearly distinct from the sibling tools which cover AQI, recalls, COVID data, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: it is for active NWS alerts for one state, aggregated. It also explains the payment flow ('Omit to receive the payment requirements'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Canonical SPDX license record by identifier: full name, OSI/FSF approval status, deprecation flag and reference URL, from the official SPDX license list. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the $0.001 per-call cost, the x402 payment mechanism via USDC on Base, and that responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. This goes well beyond a simple lookup description, though it could further clarify failure or edge-case behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences of dense, relevant information with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and returned data, then adds payment and attestation details. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers what the tool returns (license metadata plus provenance and attestation), how much it costs, and the payment context. Combined with the schema, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the response. No output schema is provided, but the description explicitly lists the key return components.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only describes the payment parameter; the 'id' parameter has no description. The tool description clarifies that 'id' is an SPDX license identifier, which adds meaning, but it does not provide examples, case-sensitivity, or formatting hints. Since the schema coverage is only 50%, the description partially compensates but leaves room for interpretation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb-like operation ('lookup') and specific resource ('Canonical SPDX license record by identifier'), and enumerates the returned fields (full name, OSI/FSF approval status, deprecation flag, reference URL). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools due to the explicit SPDX license 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?
The description implies when this tool should be used: whenever an agent needs authoritative SPDX license data by identifier. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, but among the listed siblings none overlap with SPDX license lookup, so the intended context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US Bureau of Economic Analysis state GDP series: real and current-dollar GDP by year for one state. $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the cost per call ($0.005 via x402) and mentions the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, which are behavioral aspects. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or error behavior. Given no annotations exist, the description partially covers the burden.
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, two sentences, and directly states the purpose, cost, and response features. No redundant or 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?
Without an output schema, the description only vaguely indicates the data returned (real and current-dollar GDP by year). It does not explain the structure of the response, how state and year parameters are formatted, or any constraints. The mention of provenance and attestation adds some context but not enough for a user to fully understand the response. Given the presence of multiple parameters and no output schema, the description 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?
Only the 'payment' parameter has a description; 'end', 'start', and 'entity' lack descriptions. The description hints that 'entity' refers to a state and start/end are years, but this is not explicit. With 25% schema coverage and no compensating details, parameter semantics are weak.
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 returns US Bureau of Economic Analysis state GDP data, specifically real and current-dollar GDP by year for a single state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like state_population_lookup or cpi_us_monthly.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'for one state' but does not explain when a user would need this specific series over other economic data tools. No usage scenarios or comparisons are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US Census Bureau population estimate for one state, with vintage and series identifiers. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, and states the per-call cost, providing transparency about the output and payment requirements. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key details without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
Provides enough context to distinguish from siblings, but lacks explanation of what the 'id' represents (e.g., state code, FIPS), which is necessary for correct usage. Also doesn't describe output structure, though no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all; the schema only provides a maxLength. The payment parameter is described in the schema but not in the tool description. Thus the description adds no additional 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 identifies the tool as a US Census Bureau population estimate for one state, with vintage and series identifiers, distinguishing it from sibling lookup tools.
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?
Mentions cost and payment, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternative lookup tools. The cost information serves as usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
NOAA NCEI monthly average temperature (GSOM) for one weather station, with station metadata and observation date. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behaviors: the cost per call, the x402 payment mechanism, and that the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it omits details about error handling, optional payment quoting behavior, or any potential side effects, though those are not central for a read-only retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, communicating the core purpose in the first sentence and additional transactional/response details in the second. It avoids redundancy, though the pricing and attestation details could be considered extraneous for basic functionality.
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 conveys the essential output (temperature, station metadata, observation date) and mentions the attestation, but it lacks parameter explanations and does not describe the response structure beyond high-level elements. Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides a moderate but incomplete picture of what the tool returns and requires.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only documents the 'payment' parameter, and the description does little to clarify the semantics of 'start', 'end', or 'entity'. It is not clear whether 'entity' is a station identifier or what date format 'start'/'end' expect. With only 25% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of these 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 identifies the tool as retrieving NOAA NCEI monthly average temperatures for a single weather station along with station metadata and observation date. It also distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools by specifying the unique data source and the presence of provenance/attestation.
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 any of the many sibling lookup tools. It does not state conditions, scenarios, or explicit alternatives, so the user is left to infer usage context from the data type alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
UK Companies House company record by company number: registered name, status, incorporation date, type and registered office. $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses response content including a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation, as well as the x402 payment mechanism. It does not explicitly mention read-only behavior or error handling, but with no annotations, this is moderate 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?
Two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded and additional details in the second sentence. No extraneous 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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists returned fields and mentions payment and attestation, giving enough context for an agent. It does not cover error scenarios, but this is acceptable for a lookup 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?
The description clarifies that 'id' is a company number, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and maxLength constraints. The 'payment' parameter is already described in the schema, so the description complements without redundancy.
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 identifies the tool as a UK Companies House record lookup by company number and lists specific data fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like uk_new_companies_daily.
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 pricing and response details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as uk_new_companies_daily. Usage must be inferred from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Companies newly incorporated in the UK per day, counted from the Companies House advanced search over a rolling window. $0.01 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payment mechanism ($0.01 per call via x402), the payment parameter behavior (omit for free quote), and the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the query nature and lack of side effects are implied. The rolling window is a useful behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second covers payment and response details. No redundant phrases; information is front-loaded with the most important fact first. 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?
The description is fairly complete for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. It covers the data source, rolling window, cost, payment mechanism, and response attestation. It does not explicitly describe the output format (e.g., count vs. list), but the provenance and attestation details provide enough context. Since there is no output schema, a bit more clarity on the response shape would be helpful, but it is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the single 'payment' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own documentation, which is acceptable per the baseline rule for high schema 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 the tool's function: returns companies newly incorporated in the UK per day, sourced from Companies House advanced search over a rolling window. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like uk_company_lookup, which likely focuses on individual company lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you need daily new incorporations, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No guidance is provided on when to choose this over uk_company_lookup or other data tools, though the purpose is self-explanatory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
US Treasury 'Debt to the Penny' record for one date: total public debt outstanding, split into intragovernmental holdings and debt held by the public. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the per-call cost ($0.001 via x402) and mentions the response includes a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. However, it does not clarify read-only behavior, error handling, or what happens if payment is omitted beyond a quote.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds relevant details about cost and response. It avoids redundancy but includes non-essential pricing info that could be considered separate from the primary function.
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 lookup tool, the description covers the main output (debt totals) and response metadata (provenance, attestation). However, it does not mention specific response fields or how to interpret the date parameters, leaving some gaps for a fully self-contained description.
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?
Only the 'payment' parameter has a description. 'start' and 'end' lack any semantic explanation beyond type and format, leaving their purpose (likely date range) ambiguous, especially given the 'one date' phrasing in the description.
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 returns a US Treasury 'Debt to the Penny' record with total public debt and its split. However, it says 'for one date' while parameters are start/end (date range), creating slight ambiguity about the actual query scope.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the per-call cost and response contents but lacks guidance on selection criteria or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
USGS earthquake event by event id: magnitude, depth, place, origin time and alert level. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the per-call cost, the x402 payment mechanism via USDC on Base, and the presence of provenance and Ed25519 attestation in the response. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a generic lookup description, though it does not elaborate on failure modes or the free-quote flow.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose and key returned fields first, followed by payment and attestation details. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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 straightforward lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, key response fields, pricing, payment method, and attestation. The payment parameter's free-quote behavior is documented in the schema, so the overall context is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema documentation covers the payment parameter but not the required id parameter. The description adds meaning by clarifying that id is a USGS event id, but it does not provide examples or format details. This partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage but leaves 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 identifies the tool as a USGS earthquake event lookup by event id and enumerates the returned fields (magnitude, depth, place, origin time, alert level). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which target different domains such as air quality, CPI, recalls, or population.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: use this when you need a USGS earthquake event identified by event id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but no sibling tool covers the same domain, so the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
World Bank country record by ISO code: region, income group, lending category, capital city and coordinates. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call costs $0.001 via x402 (USDC on Base), that the response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation, and the term 'lookup' implies a read-only operation. This provides useful behavioral context, though it stops short of explicitly stating the operation is non-mutating.
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, compact sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy or extraneous detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 adequately covers the core purpose, cost, and output features (provenance chain, attestation). It omits potential details like error behavior or response format, but given the simplicity of the tool and lack of an output schema, the provided context is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a description for 'payment' (encoded x402 header, omit for quote) and the description clarifies that 'id' is the ISO country code. Both parameters are meaningfully explained, fully covering the parameter list.
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 look up a World Bank country record by ISO code, and lists the specific fields returned (region, income group, lending category, capital city, coordinates). The verb 'lookup' is unambiguous and the resource is precisely defined.
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 does not mention when to use this tool, any prerequisites, or alternatives. Although it is a simple lookup, no guidance is provided on context or conditions that would make this tool preferable over similar lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
nws_alert_severity_summaryauto_covid_19_vaccines_up_to_date_status_lookupauto_weekly_covid_19_vaccination_coverage_among_pregnant_women_18_49_years_by_race_an_lookupnws_alert_severity_summarynws_alert_severity_summaryuk_company_lookupuk_new_companies_dailyauto_ah_provisional_cancer_death_counts_by_month_and_year_2020_2021_lookupauto_dev_dqs_fetal_late_fetal_and_perinatal_mortality_rates_by_detailed_race_and_hisp_lookupauto_monthly_cumulative_number_and_percent_of_children_8_months_who_received_1_monocl_lookupauto_weekly_covid_19_vaccination_coverage_among_pregnant_women_by_race_and_ethnicity_lookupauto_weekly_cumulative_influenza_vaccination_coverage_children_6_months_through_17_ye_lookupauto_weekly_united_states_covid_19_cases_and_deaths_by_state_archived_lookupnws_alert_severity_summarynws_alert_severity_summaryauto_ah_monthly_provisional_counts_of_deaths_for_select_causes_of_death_by_sex_age_an_lookupauto_dev_dqs_infant_neonatal_and_postneonatal_mortality_rates_by_detailed_race_and_hi_lookupauto_dev_dqs_nhanes_select_oral_health_prevalence_estimates_lookupauto_hhs_covid_19_small_area_estimations_survey_monovalent_booster_audience_wave_20_lookupauto_mapping_injury_overdose_and_violence_national_lookupauto_monthly_covid_19_death_rates_per_100_000_population_by_age_group_race_and_ethnic_lookupauto_tests_for_antibodies_to_trachoma_pgp3_antigen_lookupnws_alert_severity_summarynws_alert_severity_summaryauto_ah_provisional_diabetes_death_counts_for_2020_lookupauto_dqs_nhis_child_summary_statistics_footnotes_lookupauto_fy_2023_hhs_contingency_staffing_plan_for_a_lapse_in_appropriation_lookupauto_monthly_cumulative_number_and_percent_of_children_8_months_who_received_nirsevim_lookupauto_outpatient_respiratory_illness_activity_map_lookupauto_vsrr_provisional_maternal_death_counts_and_rates_lookupauto_vsrr_state_and_national_provisional_counts_for_live_births_deaths_and_infant_dea_lookupauto_weekly_differences_in_cumulative_influenza_vaccination_coverage_and_comparison_b_lookupauto_weekly_influenza_vaccination_coverage_among_pregnant_women_18_49_years_by_race_a_lookupnws_alert_severity_summarynws_alert_severity_summaryauto_ah_cumulative_provisional_death_counts_by_sex_race_and_age_from_1_1_2020_to_7_4__lookupauto_ah_monthly_provisional_counts_of_deaths_by_age_group_and_hhs_region_for_select_c_lookupauto_nationwide_commercial_laboratory_seroprevalence_survey_lookupauto_weekly_cumulative_doses_in_millions_of_influenza_vaccines_distributed_by_season__lookupnws_alert_severity_summarynws_alert_severity_summaryuk_company_lookupuk_new_companies_dailyauto_2020_2021_nationwide_blood_donor_seroprevalence_survey_combined_infection_and_va_lookupauto_ah_provisional_covid_19_deaths_by_race_age_and_sex_from_3_1_2020_to_7_31_2020_lookupauto_covid_19_vaccine_distribution_allocations_by_jurisdiction_janssen_lookupauto_nchs_age_adjusted_death_rates_for_selected_major_causes_of_death_lookupauto_nhanes_select_chronic_conditions_prevalence_estimates_lookupauto_weekly_cumulative_rsv_vaccination_coverage_and_intent_overall_by_selected_demogr_lookupauto_examination_of_sars_cov_2_serological_test_results_from_multiple_commercial_and__lookupauto_hhs_covid_19_small_area_estimations_survey_monovalent_booster_audience_wave_16_lookupauto_weekly_cumulative_percentage_of_children_ages_6_months_17_years_who_are_up_to_da_lookupnws_alert_severity_summarynws_alert_severity_summaryauto_beam_dashboard_top_30_most_common_serotypes_lookupauto_hhs_covid_19_small_area_estimations_survey_primary_vaccine_series_wave_27_lookupauto_nchs_drug_poisoning_mortality_by_state_united_states_lookupauto_nssp_emergency_department_visits_covid_19_flu_rsv_combined_by_demographic_catego_lookupauto_test_restructured_dqs_functional_limitation_in_adults_age_18_and_older_by_select_lookupauto_weekly_cumulative_rsv_vaccination_coverage_by_race_and_ethnicity_medicare_fee_fo_lookupauto_weekly_differences_in_cumulative_rsv_vaccination_coverage_among_adults_75_and_ol_lookupnws_alert_severity_summarynws_alert_severity_summaryuk_company_lookupuk_new_companies_dailyauto_ah_provisional_covid_19_deaths_by_week_place_of_death_and_age_lookupauto_dqs_visits_to_physician_offices_hospital_outpatient_departments_and_hospital_eme_lookupauto_hhs_covid_19_small_area_estimations_survey_primary_vaccine_series_wave_06_lookupauto_monthly_cumulative_number_and_percent_of_children_20_months_who_received_nirsevi_lookupauto_nchs_birth_rates_for_females_by_age_group_united_states_lookupauto_physician_experiences_related_to_covid_19_from_the_national_ambulatory_medical_c_lookupauto_weekly_cumulative_influenza_vaccination_coverage_map_and_comparison_between_2025_lookupnws_alert_severity_summaryauto_children_by_disposition_lookupauto_dev_dqs_drug_overdose_death_rates_by_drug_type_sex_age_race_and_hispanic_origin__lookupauto_nchs_leading_causes_of_death_united_states_lookupauto_nutrition_physical_activity_and_obesity_county_level_breastfeeding_initiation_ra_lookupauto_weekly_differences_in_cumulative_percentage_of_children_ages_6_months_17_years_w_lookupauto_weekly_respiratory_syncytial_virus_rsv_vaccination_coverage_among_pregnant_or_re_lookupauto_dev_dqs_death_rates_for_suicide_by_sex_race_hispanic_origin_and_age_united_state_lookupauto_distribution_of_covid_19_deaths_and_populations_by_jurisdiction_age_and_race_and_lookupauto_hhs_covid_19_small_area_estimations_survey_primary_vaccine_series_wave_24_lookupauto_prevalence_of_selected_measures_among_adults_aged_20_and_over_united_states_1999_lookupauto_an_aggregated_dataset_of_day_3_post_inoculation_viral_titer_measurements_from_in_lookupauto_child_victims_trend_lookupauto_hhs_covid_19_small_area_estimations_survey_primary_vaccine_series_wave_17_lookupauto_nhanes_select_oral_health_prevalence_estimates_lookupauto_weekly_cumulative_influenza_vaccination_coverage_by_flu_season_and_race_ethnicit_lookupVerify official facts with Bitcoin-anchored proof. 180+ signals, x402 pay-per-call.
Companies House, Find a Tender and Find a Grant as paid JSON for agents. USDC via x402, no signup.
Pay-per-call x402 services for agents: risk scoring, DeFi, wallet and market data.
8.1M+ US gov and science data via x402 USDC. 21 tools, $0.001 sample tier, sanctions, SEC, CVEs.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
