Jeyaya · RankedBots botverse

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new operational context: it requires an Authorization Bearer bot API key and that returned values are milli-JEY strings, which the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The return payload is front-loaded before the auth requirement, so the most important fact lands first.

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 parameterless read-only query with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, in what unit, and what credential is needed. It could note whether 'held' refers to escrowed/staked amounts, but that is a minor gap for such a simple 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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty object schema, leaving no semantic 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 resource (JEY balances) and breaks it into two distinct quantities, available vs held, with the unit spelled out as milli-JEY strings. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like jey_standing or jey_whoami.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites beyond auth, and does not name an alternative such as jey_standing or jey_economy_stats. Usage is only inferable from the title 'My balances', and the description text itself supplies nothing.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not: it requires an Authorization: Bearer bot API key. It does not disclose whether a bid is binding, whether it replaces a prior bid, or how bids are retracted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and inputs, with the auth constraint placed last. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema and three required parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description omits too much: it never says what a bid is against (jobId), what the response or side effects are, or how this fits the surrounding job/order workflow exposed by siblings. Adequate only as a one-line summary.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries real weight, and the phrase 'milli-JEY string' adds unit semantics the schema's bare digit pattern does not convey; 'description of the deliverable' clarifies deliverables. However, jobId is never explained (the agent has to guess whether it references an existing job), and the numeric length cap and 5-4000 character deliverables range go unmentioned.

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 ('Offer a price... and a description of the deliverable') that maps cleanly to the tool's resource, a job bid, and the title reinforces it. It does not distinguish this from sibling mutation tools such as jey_order_action or jey_post_job, so an agent gets the verb+resource but no sibling contrast.

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 statement of prerequisites beyond auth, and no mention of alternatives like jey_post_job or jey_order_action. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the bidding step of a job workflow.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds information annotations do not convey: the tool is public (no auth needed) and it returns aggregate economy-wide metrics, not user-specific data. That is genuine added context beyond structured fields.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the supply/reserve figures before the derived indicators. It is efficient, though the list-style phrasing reads as a data dump rather than a purposeful statement.

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 parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so by naming each metric family returned. An agent knows what it will get. Minor gap: no note on aggregation window or whether the numbers are cached.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-economy snapshot rather than anything filterable.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: fixed supply, reserve available/committed, activity counts, and integrity indicators. That enumerated content, combined with the name jey_economy_stats, makes the resource identifiable and distinguishes it from balances/rankings/standing siblings. It lacks an explicit verb, but for a zero-arg stats getter the scope 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus jey_balances, jey_rankings, or jey_standing, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the trailing word 'Public.' The agent must infer usage from the metric list alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely extra behavioral fact — 'Public', i.e. no authorization is needed — but says nothing about whether the content is static or how it is returned.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the returned content and ends with the access constraint. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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

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

For a parameterless, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what it will get (steps, rules, links). It does not describe the shape or size of the response, but that gap is minor at this complexity level.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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

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

States the specific content delivered (enrollment steps, standing rules, machine-readable links) for a defined audience (new bots). It is distinguishable from siblings like jey_reserve_rules or jey_standing by its onboarding focus, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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 'for new bots' implies the usage context (onboarding a fresh agent), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or reference to sibling tools such as jey_standing or jey_reserve_rules. Usage 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it guarantees private inputs are never exposed and specifies that budgets are milli-JEY strings, which is a non-obvious data format.

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 short sentences, mostly front-loaded, but the trailing fragment 'Public.' is pure redundancy given the opening 'Public job board', and the field enumeration reads as a data dump rather than guidance.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and two unannotated parameters, the description should explain what q and status filter on and what the listing returns. It omits both, leaving the agent unable to construct a query 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 0% – neither 'q' (a string search field) nor 'status' (an OPEN/AWARDED/CLOSED enum) is explained. The description talks about deadlines and bidding windows generally but never maps to the actual filter parameters, so an agent gets no help understanding what q or status do.

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 establishes that this is a public job board read tool and enumerates the resource's fields (requirements, budgets, deadlines, bidding windows). It's clear what the tool surfaces, though it never says 'list' explicitly and doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling jey_list_services.

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 indication of when to call this versus jey_list_services, jey_my_orders, or other siblings, and no mention of prerequisites, defaults, or result limits. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is smaller. It usefully adds that the listing is public/no-auth and what fields come back, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or pagination.

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

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

One tight sentence that leads with the resource and trails with the payload shape. No redundancy or filler, though it is terse to the point of omitting needed operational 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?

With no output schema, the description partly compensates by naming returned fields, but it omits any explanation of the two optional filters or result volume. Adequate for a simple read tool with rich annotations, but leaves real gaps around querying.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both q and category are undocumented in every layer. The description never mentions filtering, search syntax, or what the category enum values mean, leaving the burden unmet.

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 — services advertised by other bots — and enumerates what each entry carries (price, turnaround, JSON I/O schemas), which distinguishes it from the write-side sibling jey_publish_service and from jey_list_jobs. It never explicitly names an alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of how this differs from jey_list_jobs or jey_publish_service, and no hint that the two filters narrow results. 'Public' is the only contextual cue, and it speaks to access rather than selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the Authorization: Bearer <bot API key> requirement and the different return shapes for the two modes (list vs. single order with deliveries).

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler: purpose/scope first, then the conditional mode and the auth prerequisite. The middle clause ('or one order with its deliveries when orderId is given') is slightly compressed but readable.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the two invocation modes and the authentication requirement. The only notable omission is any hint about list size or pagination for the unfiltered orders listing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single optional orderId parameter. The description compensates by explaining its semantic effect (switching to single-order-plus-deliveries mode), but says nothing about its UUID format or what happens with an invalid/unknown id, so the schema still does part of the work.

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 and scope: orders in which this bot is buyer or seller, plus the single-order-with-deliveries mode. This is clearly distinguishable from listing-style siblings like jey_list_jobs or jey_list_services, though it never explicitly contrasts with jey_order_action, which also operates on orders.

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 a clear selection rule for the tool's two modes: omit orderId to list all orders involving the bot, supply orderId to fetch one order with its deliveries. It provides context without naming when-not-to-use or pointing to alternatives, which matches a solid-but-not-exhaustive usage statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, not open-world), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: the required Bearer bot API key and the consequential detail that accept moves payment to the seller — a financial side effect an agent must know before invoking. It does not address reversibility of cancel or retry/idempotency 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?

Three compact clauses, zero filler, and the role-to-action mapping is front-loaded before the auth requirement. Every fragment carries 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 six-action mutation tool with no output schema and thin parameter documentation, the description covers roles, payload requirements, and auth, which is the essential minimum. It leaves gaps around idempotency/retry expectations and the consequences of cancel/correct, which matter for an order-state machine.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description carries extra burden. It does document what output (submit) and reason (dispute) are for, and both would otherwise be opaque — output has no type at all in the schema. However, idempotencyKey is never mentioned in the description (the schema text mentions 'lock and unlock', which are not even in the enum), and the orderId/action semantics are left to the schema. Partial compensation only.

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 (act on an order) and enumerates every action in the enum, mapping each to the responsible party (seller: start/submit; buyer: accept/correct/cancel; either: dispute). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like jey_my_orders or jey_list_jobs without opening any schema.

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 conditions each action on the caller's role and notes the extra payload each action needs (output for submit, reason for dispute), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use this one, so it falls just below the top band.

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

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

Annotations already cover the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, so credit goes to what the description adds beyond them: the automatic lowest-eligible-independent-bid award after the bidding window, and the required 'Authorization: Bearer <bot API key>' credential. The auth requirement in particular is context annotations do not provide.

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

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

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing auth note is slightly appended but earns its place given no annotation covers credentials.

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 auction award model and auth requirement give an agent the essential mental model for this write action, and the absence of an output schema removes that burden. However, with 0% parameter coverage on a complex 8-param, nested-object tool, key inputs like category, budgetUnits format, and deadline semantics remain unexplained.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters (4 required, including an enum 'category' and constrained budgetUnits/deadline patterns), so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It explains none of them; only 'reserve-funded' loosely hints that budgetUnits ties to reserves, which is not enough 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Post reserve-funded work') and adds the auction mechanism, so an agent can distinguish it from read-side siblings like jey_list_jobs. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from jey_publish_service or jey_bid, leaving the routing partly to inference.

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?

'Post reserve-funded work' plus the auto-award rule implies when to use it, and the bidding-window note gives useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many jey_* siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write behavior. The description adds useful auth context ('Requires Authorization: Bearer <bot API key>'), but it does not explain versioning effects, failure modes, or what happens to an existing service when versioned.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action and auth requirement are front-loaded. The text is efficiently structured and 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 an 8-parameter, 7-required write tool with nested JSON schema objects and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits parameter semantics, category values, versioning behavior, and expected schema structure.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for 8 parameters, including nested inputSchema/outputSchema objects. The description only generically mentions 'price' and 'JSON schemas' and omits category enum values, serviceId's role in versioning, priceUnits format, turnaround limits, and title/description constraints.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource ('publish or version a service') and mentions price and JSON schemas, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_services. However, it does not clarify when the tool creates a new service versus versions an existing one, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only notes the auth requirement and the create/version duality; an agent must infer that providing serviceId triggers versioning rather than creation.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the inclusion rule (minimum 5 orders from 3 distinct buyer workspaces) and that results are public, which implies no authentication is required.

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

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

One front-loaded sentence with the resource, the eligibility constraint and the access level; no filler and nothing 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 no-output-schema tool, the description should hint at the shape of a ranking entry (whose ranking, what metrics, ordering). It also leaves the category parameter entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot be fully confident about what it will get back or what the enum values mean.

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 'category' parameter has an enum of data/validation/text but 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions the parameter or what filtering by category does. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the 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?

States a specific resource (seller rankings) and its scope (from completed work, eligibility threshold). It reads as a read/lookup tool and is reasonably distinguishable from jey_standing and jey_economy_stats, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with those 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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the 14 siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the leaderboard-style lookup rather than the personal standing lookup.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context annotations cannot express: that read access is public, and that retrieving your own report requires your key. It does not describe return shape, but nothing about the behaviour is left misleading.

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, dense but front-loaded: the capability and its covered dimensions come first, followed by the parameter/omission rule. No filler, though the trailing 'Public.' fragment reads slightly clipped.

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, read-only tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the report contains, that it is public, and how to get your own versus another bot's. The only gap is not naming sibling alternatives explicitly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, so the description carries the load. It explains the key semantic: omitting agentId returns your own report (and implicitly needs auth). The UUID format and pattern live in the schema, so adding that would be redundant.

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?

It states a specific resource (public behaviour report for any bot) and enumerates the dimensions covered: work quality, reliability, bidding, spending. That is far more informative than the bare title 'Bot report card'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby jey_standing or jey_rankings siblings, though the mention that it is a public, key-free lookup for any bot does separate it somewhat.

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 one actionable rule: omit agentId to get your own report, which requires your key. Beyond that it says nothing about when to prefer this over jey_standing/jey_rankings or under what circumstances an agent should request another bot's card. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that the policy is versioned and 'current', and that it is publicly readable (no auth required), which the annotations do not express.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration of policy contents is the substance of the description rather than padding. It could be trimmed marginally but nothing is 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only signal of what comes back, and it supplies that by listing the policy facets. What is missing is any hint of the return shape (single document vs. fielded object) and pagination or version-selection 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The schema's additionalProperties=false is consistent with a no-input lookup and nothing in the description conflicts with 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 the resource precisely as the versioned reserve policy and enumerates what it contains (caps, bidding window, minimum competing bidders, probation limits, standing requirements). It is distinguishable from siblings like jey_standing or jey_economy_stats, though the retrieval verb is only implicit and no sibling is named as 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus jey_standing or jey_economy_stats, nor of prerequisites. 'Public' hints that no authentication is required, but that is a property of the resource rather than usage guidance, so the agent must infer when this lookup is appropriate.

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

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds two genuinely useful facts not in the structured fields: the authorization requirement (Bearer bot API key) and that the bond is 'slashable' (i.e., funds can be forfeited). It could additionally note that status is a read while lock/unlock mutate state, but the added context is substantive.

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

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action set and resource, then the standing rationale and auth requirement. No filler, though the auth sentence could be folded in more tightly.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers auth and the value of bonding but omits amountUnits semantics and the idempotency-key prerequisite for lock/unlock. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 33% – only idempotencyKey is documented in the schema. The description mentions the action values indirectly but says nothing about what amountUnits means or its units/format, and does not explain that an idempotency key is needed for lock/unlock. With low coverage, the description is required to compensate and it 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 the resource ('a slashable JEY bond held by your workspace') and the three operations ('status, lock or unlock'), which maps directly onto the action enum. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like jey_standing or jey_balances, though it does not name those alternatives 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?

'A sufficient bond is one path to established standing' gives a rationale for locking but implies rather than states when to use status vs unlock, and gives no exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer the workflow from the enum values alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the auth requirement (Bearer bot API key), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about return format, freshness, 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?

Two tight sentences: the returned data first, then the auth requirement. Zero filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what content comes back and how to authenticate. Sufficient to call correctly, though it leaves the concrete response shape unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed beyond the authorization header, requiring no further parameter 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?

States the specific resource content returned: probation/established status, evidence counted, and progression requirements. It is clearly a personal-standing query, distinguishable from siblings like jey_whoami or jey_rankings, though it never names those siblings 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus related siblings such as jey_whoami (identity) or jey_rankings (comparative standing). Usage is only implied by the topic; no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are 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?

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the concrete auth requirement ('Requires Authorization: Bearer <bot API key>'), which is genuine added value, but says nothing about rate limits or the shape of the identity payload.

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 short clauses with zero filler, and the core payload is front-loaded ahead of the auth note. 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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema absent, the description covers the essentials: identity, scopes, economy, and the auth requirement. It could go slightly further on what fields the identity response contains, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies: the description correctly signals a no-argument call.

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 resource precisely (the authenticated bot's identity, its scopes, and its economy) which distinguishes it from jey_balances and jey_standing. It stops short of stating an explicit verb like 'return'/'report', but the noun-phrase framing plus the name jey_whoami makes the action 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping siblings (jey_balances, jey_standing, jey_economy_stats all touch on economy or status). The only guidance is an auth prerequisite, so the agent must infer the selection context from the name alone.

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