AgentGas

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that the server cannot sign, that payment happens through the caller's x402 client, and that the mechanism is gasless EIP-3009 with USDC on Base (no ETH required). It does not say whether the payment URL expires or is single-use, which would be the remaining useful 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 sentences, zero filler, and the deliverable is front-loaded before the payment constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only, 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return artifact (instructions plus URL) and the payment mechanics, which is substantial. It nonetheless leaves the usd/amount parameters and any expiry or validity window of the returned URL undocumented, so the picture is 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 description coverage is only 50%: 'chain' and 'to' are documented in the schema, but 'usd' and 'amount' are bare strings with no explanation anywhere. The description adds no parameter guidance at all, leaving the likely mutual exclusivity of usd vs amount completely unresolved despite directly affecting how the tool is invoked.

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 deliverable: step-by-step instructions plus the exact x402 payment URL for buying native gas for an address. That is a clear verb+resource, though it never contrasts itself with agentgas_order or agentgas_quote, so sibling differentiation must be inferred.

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 the usage flow by stating the server cannot sign payments and that the caller's x402 client must pay the returned URL with USDC on Base. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance relative to agentgas_order, agentgas_quote, or agentgas_status.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral value by enumerating the possible states (pending, processing, delivered, refunded) and noting that delivered carries a payout_tx on the destination chain while refunded carries a refund_tx on Base. It omits error behavior for an unknown order_id.

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 that delivers purpose, parameter, and return states with no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by spelling out the four possible statuses and the transaction fields returned for the terminal states. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete, though it could note what happens on an invalid or unknown order_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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It only identifies order_id as the lookup key and adds no format, source, or example, which is the minimum viable amount of 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Status of an AgentGas order') and the key lookup field (order_id), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling agentgas_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse with an order-status 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call after placing an order, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing guidance distinguishing it from agentgas_status or agentgas_quote.

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 read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds real context: the quote costs nothing ('Free'), payment happens later via gasless x402 on Base, and invalid or over-capacity requests are rejected before any payment. It does not discuss quote expiry or rate limits, but the added operational 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return fields and the rejection behavior. Dense parentheticals (chain list, x402 explanation) slightly burden readability but each sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and all four parameters are documented in the schema. What remains thin is the workflow framing (that this is the pre-step to agentgas_order), but nothing needed to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries a description, including the amount-vs-usd choice and the chain enum. The description reinforces the amount semantics at a high level but adds no syntax, formatting, or precedence rules beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Free price quote' returning how much USDC buys native gas) and enumerates the return payload (price_usdc, breakdown, x402 URL). It is clearly distinct from an ordering tool in intent, though it never names the sibling agentgas_order as the execution counterpart.

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: 'Free price quote' plus 'Rejects bad input or over-capacity before any payment' suggests calling this before agentgas_order, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus agentgas_order/agentgas_status. The agent must infer the quote→order 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=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-reach are covered structurally. The description adds that the data is 'live,' implying real-time freshness rather than cached values, plus the per-chain and daily-cap dimensions, but says nothing about rate limits, staleness windows, or response 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?

Two tight sentences with the data contents front-loaded and the action cue second. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing that fails to earn 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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does so adequately by listing float, availability, prices, and caps. A note on freshness or update cadence would have closed the remaining 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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description still adds value by explaining the granularity of the result set ('per-chain'), telling the agent what dimensions come back without needing a chain argument.

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 and enumerates its contents: 'live per-chain float, availability, prices and daily caps of the AgentGas service.' An agent can tell this is a read-only status/state lookup, distinct from the sibling order/quote/how_to_buy tools, though the verb itself is only 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?

'Check before paying' gives a usage cue tied to the ordering flow, implying this is a pre-transaction sanity check. It does not name agentgas_quote or agentgas_order as alternatives, nor state when this tool is the wrong choice, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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