market

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 PAY FIRST behavior, the hold-cancellation mechanism, no-balance/no-account policy, exact error statuses, and the settlement-on-delivery model. This is exceptionally transparent for a paid API.

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

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

The description is a single dense paragraph, but it is chronologically organized and front-loaded with the core PAY FIRST behavior. Every clause carries protocol or error information, though the length is substantial. It earns its length without being rambling.

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 non-trivial two-phase payment flow with no output schema, the description covers the first response, retry conditions, payment confirmation, delivery failure, receipt information, and all refusal names. An agent has everything needed to drive the tool correctly through its lifecycle.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds valuable relational semantics: retry must repeat the exact prompt, retry_token must accompany payment_hash, contract determines retry shape, and max_sat only lowers the door price. This exceeds the schema's isolated 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 opens with 'Buy one answer on the Hekte market' — a specific verb, resource, and transaction model. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling balance and job tools by describing its unique paid-question role.

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 an explicit two-phase protocol: call with prompt alone, receive an invoice, have a human pay, then retry with the same prompt/class plus payment_hash and retry_token. It also states when retry fields should be omitted and what happens before/after payment, leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses the pay-first model, the absence of a persistent balance, and the open/closed market gate. However, it is ambiguous whether calling this endpoint has side effects such as minting an invoice, and it does not state whether the call is read-only.

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

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

The description is a single tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs each return field's meaning into inline code formatting. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.

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

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

For a one-parameter endpoint with no output schema, the description explains the meaning of every return field and the payment model, and the schema fully covers the contract parameter. It would be slightly stronger with an explicit statement on when to call it relative to the sibling tools, but that gap is largely usage guidance rather than missing operational context.

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

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

The input schema already documents the only parameter, `contract`, with rich detail including the default behavior, the retry_with relationship, and the contract_mismatch refusal. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 100% schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 what the tool returns: the price parameters for the next hekte_ask on a pay-first door, including price_sat, invoice_expiry_s, pay_first, and open. It also directly clarifies that 'balance' is a misnomer — no balance exists. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', but the resource and scope are 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use hekte_balance versus its siblings hekte_ask or hekte_job. The phrasing 'PRICE of the next hekte_ask' implies it should be consulted before placing an ask, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries disclosure responsibility and does a solid job: it states the data scope, explicitly excludes the brief and output, requires caller's own payment, and defines `found:false`. It does not describe all error and edge behavior, hence not 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 dense and all content is relevant, but it is a single long sentence with several parenthetical interruptions, making it slightly harder to scan than a more structured two-sentence version.

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, it communicates the broad response content (ledger line categories and `found:false`) and the required inputs. It leaves the exact response shape and error handling implicit, but the main invocation path is adequately described.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is satisfied; the description adds the correlation invariant among `job_id`, `payment_hash`, and `retry_token`, and the not-found convention, going beyond simply restating 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 a specific resource ('this door's BUYER LEDGER') and a precise outcome ('One job's lines'), enumerates what those lines contain, and ties the job to a prior `hekte_ask` result so it cannot be confused with `hekte_ask` or `hekte_balance`.

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 clearly states the precondition that the caller must have paid for the job and that `job_id` must come from `hekte_ask` for the same `payment_hash` + `retry_token`. It does not explicitly name an alternative for other needs, so it stops short of a full 5.

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