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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: pricing per successful call, x402/Solana payment context, and an equivalent HTTPS endpoint.

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 examples, range, price, and endpoint each carry relevant information. It is slightly longer due to multiple example values, but no sentence is clearly wasted.

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-parameter read-only math tool with no output schema, the description provides the definition, worked examples, valid range, and access details. The main remaining gap is that it does not explicitly contrast the tool with its Blum siblings.

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 zero parameter description coverage and only encodes integer type plus min/max. The description compensates slightly by defining n as an inclusive upper bound ('at most n') and giving worked examples, but it does not elaborate further on the parameter's meaning or formula 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 clearly states a specific mathematical operation and resource: the sum of Blum integers at most n. It is distinguishable from adjacent tools like blum_count and blum_next by the explicit 'sum' wording, though it does not directly 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?

Usage is implied by the definition and worked examples, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings such as blum_count or blum. The range constraint is stated, but no exclusions or alternative routing guidance are provided.

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