X402 Plaza Services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the air-gapped aspect, which implies privacy and offline processing, but does not disclose whether results are cached, if there are rate limits, or the nature of the 402 payment flow 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('AI analysis' and 'air-gapped model'). It is efficiently worded with no fluff, though it could be slightly more specific without sacrificing brevity.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, output schema present, annotations cover safety), the description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits details like whether output is structured as JSON, expected latency, or if there are content restrictions, which an agent might need for a paid call.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both prompt and paymentProof, so the description adds minimal value. It does not explain the relationship between paymentProof and the 402 quote, but the schema already states that omitting it yields a price quote. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 tool as performing AI analysis via an air-gapped model, which is specific enough to distinguish it from generic 'analyze' tools. However, it does not mention what kind of analysis it supports (e.g., research, code review), leaving some ambiguity compared to siblings like analysis.summarize_clean.

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 research questions or task instructions, and the paymentProof parameter suggests a paid usage model, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analysis.summarize_clean or security.audit_agent_code. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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 mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context: air-gapped processing, a 40k-token input cap, clean JSON output, and a price of $0.10 per 10k tokens. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 each sentence contributes a distinct fact: value proposition, input format/limit, processing behavior, and pricing. The opening marketing claim is less functional but still helps signal the cost-saving use case.

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, three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the input limit, payment cost, privacy posture, and result type. The main gaps are explicit alternative routing and a fuller wallet description, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates: it clarifies that text is HTML/PDF content up to 40k tokens, and the pricing line implies wallet is the payment source. However, wallet's exact role and format remain undocumented.

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 function: it accepts massive HTML/PDF dumps, strips noise via an air-gapped LLM, and returns clean JSON. That is a clear verb-resource pair, but it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling analysis.offline_ai, so it stops short of full 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?

The description gives a clear trigger: use this when you have massive HTML/PDF dumps up to 40k tokens and want to save API tokens. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is concrete enough for an agent to select it.

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 establish that this is a non-read-only, open-world operation, and the description does not add behavioral details such as payment mechanics, side effects, or reversibility. The brief phrase 'Buy...' restates the mutation already indicated by annotations, so beyond annotations it contributes little.

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 short, front-loaded sentence that avoids filler and gets the core transaction out quickly. It is appropriately sized for a simple purchase, though it could have used the spare space for behavioral context.

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 a rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the minimum facts are present, but the lack of usage guidance and payment-flow explanation in the description leaves the agent to assemble context from the schema. It is minimally viable 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so wallet and paymentProof already have descriptions; the tool description contributes no parameter-level semantics. At baseline 3, it is adequate but adds no extra guidance 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?

Description uses a concrete action ('Buy') with a quantity and resource ('1000 prompt-injection scans'), so an agent knows the transactional nature at a glance. It is not tautological and no sibling tool is similar, but it doesn't explicitly state when it differs from any alternative, stopping 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?

No sentence addresses when this tool should be used or when an alternative would be preferable. The only secondary phrase, 'Omit to receive a 402 price quote,' is parameter behavior, not usage context. The agent must infer the intended use 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 are all false and offer no behavioral safety signal, so the description carries that burden. It discloses several non-obvious behaviors: Plaza locks funds, verifies work, charges a 5% fee, requires a $50 minimum, has a 24-hour dispute window, and jobs can never be deleted. Per-action side effects are not detailed, but the transparency is well above baseline.

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 information-dense, placing the action list near the start and then delivering key constraints in short clauses. The opening tagline 'The autonomous gig economy' is mildly promotional, but the overall structure wastes little 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?

This is a multi-action stateful tool with 10 parameters and no per-action required-parameter mapping-executing fund, release, dispute, and status likely have very different requirements. The description lacks the operational detail needed to invoke actions correctly, and the output schema does not resolve which parameters are required for each action.

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%, and the description does not compensate for the nine undocumented parameters. It repeats the action enum but does not explain the roles of jobId, wallet, evidence, amountUsd, deliverable, paymentProof, or workerWallet. An agent would still need to guess which parameters apply to which action.

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 clear domain ('autonomous gig economy') and enumerates the exact actions the tool performs: create, fund, submit, release, dispute, status, board. It is clear that this is a versatile escrow tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool escrow.verify_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?

The description gives no direct guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like escrow.verify_work or plaza.* tools. It provides context about fees and limits but no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion criteria, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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 destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention evidence submission, oracle attestation, paymentProof-triggered price quotes, or any side effects. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. Three words provide no usable context for a tool with four parameters and an output schema, so the brevity does not 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?

While the input schema and output schema cover parameter mechanics and return shape, the description fails to explain the verification process, the role of criteria/evidence, or when this tool should be selected. An agent cannot determine whether this is a read-only attestation, a payment-gated verification, or part of a dispute workflow.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters, their types, constraints, and optionality. The description contributes no parameter-level detail, but with complete schema coverage 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 'Escrow oracle verification' essentially restates the title 'Verify Escrow Work' and tool name without specifying what the tool actually does, what it returns, or how verification is performed. It names a vague concept ('oracle verification') but does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like escrow.agent_to_agent.

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 verify_work instead of related escrow, security, or certification tools. The name hints at a verification context, but no conditions, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Free to call' and 'every' (exhaustive listing), which are useful operational traits beyond the annotations. For a zero-parameter read-only catalog, this is sufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope with zero filler. Every word contributes 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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all essential context: what is listed, what attributes are included, and that the call is free.

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 has no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details; baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 'List', a clear resource 'every paid tool', and the included attributes 'price and chains'. It is distinct from sibling tools like plaza.earnings and plaza.how_it_works, so an agent can identify this as the catalog endpoint.

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 intended usage: call this when you need an overview of paid tools with pricing and chain info. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. 'Free to call' adds cost context but not selection criteria.

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 carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds 'Free to call' and names the exact status fields returned, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence front-loads the action, then lists the key status aspects and the cost note. There is no filler; every element contributes to helping an agent invoke the tool appropriately.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema. The description names what is checked and that it is free, leaving parameter format to the schema and return values to the output schema. Nothing essential 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 single wallet parameter is already fully documented in the schema with 'Your wallet address,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional information about wallet format, validation, or ownership, so it correctly relies on 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('your Soul Badge status'), and enumerates concrete status aspects: eligibility, discount active, days until transferable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling plaza.claim_badge, which is a mutation rather than a read-only status check.

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 communicates clear context: use this to check Soul Badge status, and it is 'Free to call.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but its role as the read-only counterpart to claim_badge is strongly implied.

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 provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: 'Badge is soulbound for 1 year, then transferable' and 'Free to call.' It also discloses the opt-in nature and the lasting benefit (20% off forever). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short sentences, each adding unique information: opt-in nature, eligibility and benefit, badge transferability and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler. 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?

Given a one-parameter schema with 100% coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It communicates eligibility, benefit, and ownership constraints. It does not explicitly state prerequisites like holding a registered wallet, but that is not required for a simple claim action and is implied by the wallet 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 coverage is 100% with the wallet parameter described as 'Your wallet address,' so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add further detail about the wallet format or source. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with verb and resource: 'Claim the Plaza Services Soul Badge after 3 purchases.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like plaza.check_badge (check vs claim) and plaza.register (registration vs badge claim). The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to 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 specifies eligibility with 'after 3 purchases' and marks the action as 'OPT-IN', giving clear context for when to call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the condition alone is sufficient for an agent to route correctly. Sibling tools like plaza.check_badge are implicitly alternatives for verification.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds the 'Free to call' note and specifies exactly what data is returned (earnings and referrals), which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them. No contradiction 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the cost note. No filler, 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 tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema. The description covers purpose, cost, and the returned data scope. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the wallet parameter described as 'Your wallet address'. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('referral commission earnings and who you referred'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like plaza.check_badge or plaza.referral_kit. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 includes 'Free to call' which adds context about cost, but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs alternatives. However, for a read-only earnings check, the use case is self-evident, and no exclusions are needed. It provides clear context without explicit alternatives.

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 only provide hint flags; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is paid ($25.00 USDC), rate-limited (10/day/wallet, 2/hour/IP), and produces an exclusive, permanent wallet. It does not cover failure modes or the actual charging flow, but it goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying essential information: the action, uniqueness guarantee, usage limits, and price. No filler or redundant restatement 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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, price, rate limits, and persistence semantics. The only notable omission is how/when the $25 payment is actually charged, which is secondary to correct invocation since the caller already provides the paying wallet address.

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 the single 'wallet' parameter already has a description and format validation ('42-char hex'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a fresh permanent EVM wallet.' Additional attributes ('Zero-balance verified, single-use (yours permanently)', '$25.00 USDC') make it clearly distinct from the plaza.* registration/badge 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 clearly implies when to use it—whenever a new permanent EVM wallet is needed—and includes rate limits and cost. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool or state 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing access requirements ('Free to call, no wallet required') and scoping the content to payments, referrals, badges, and testimonials. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core value proposition is front-loaded ('Full algorithmic transparency: how we verify...'), immediately followed by the concrete scope and the access condition. 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 tool has no parameters, an output schema is present, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description names the specific content domains covered. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this informational 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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are effectively moot. The input schema is empty and description coverage is 100%. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is high, and the description appropriately focuses on what the information payload contains rather than 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 an informational resource: 'Full algorithmic transparency: how we verify payments, referrals, badges, testimonials.' It names specific covered topics and is not a tautology. It could go further by explicitly contrasting itself with transactional sibling tools, but the purpose is clear 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?

'Free to call, no wallet required' gives good access context and implies there are no prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like plaza.check_badge, plaza.claim_badge, or plaza.testimonial, nor does it list exclusions. Usage context is clear but not exhaustive.

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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: the operation is free, the output is machine-readable, settlement happens on-chain, and the commission is 10%. However, it does not disclose side effects (whether calling this binds a referral relationship), prerequisites, or what 'broadcast block' is for.

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 zero waste. The primary deliverable is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the incentive/context ('Free', '10%', 'on-chain') follows efficiently. 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?

For a low-complexity tool with a single documented parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately covers what is delivered and why it matters. The main gaps are prerequisites (registration status, wallet chain) and side effects, which are notable but not severe given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% (the single 'wallet' parameter is already documented as 'Your wallet address'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics such as chain requirements or address format, and its mention of 'on-chain' settlement only weakly reinforces 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 uses a specific deliverable verb ('Get') tied to a concrete resource ('agent referral code + machine-readable broadcast block'), and clarifies the economic purpose ('Earn 10% of referred spend'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like plaza.register, plaza.earnings, and plaza.catalog, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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 use case is implied rather than stated: an agent wanting a referral code to earn rewards would call this. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be a registered agent), and no naming of alternatives among the many plaza 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?

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, yet the description says 'Register ... to earn commission ... forever,' which strongly implies persistent state changes. This is an annotation contradiction. The description also does not disclose behavior on duplicate registration or a missing referralCode, though idempotentHint partially covers that.

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 short sentences, is front-loaded with the main purpose, and adds only the relevant cost note. No words are 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?

Given the simple optional parameter, rich annotations, and output schema, the description could be sufficient. However, the readOnlyHint contradiction makes the overall context unreliable and could cause an agent to select or invoke the tool incorrectly.

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 describes the single optional referralCode parameter thoroughly, including the required format (PLAZA-REF-XXXXXXXX). The prose adds no additional meaning beyond the word 'referral code,' so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% 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 names a concrete action ('Register with a referral code') and a clear outcome ('earn commission on referrals forever'). It goes beyond the title, but it does not differentiate plaza.register from siblings such as plaza.referral_kit or plaza.earnings, so it stops 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?

'Free to call' gives a useful cost signal and the purpose clause implies when to use it, but the description never states when not to use it or names an alternative, such as plaza.referral_kit. The usage guidance is therefore only implied, not explicit.

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 mark this as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds helpful behavioral context beyond that: the review is public, verified, and contingent on a paid call, and the call is free. No contradiction exists between the description and the annotations.

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 deliver the core action, the eligibility condition, the included components, and the cost in minimal space. Everything is front-loaded and every phrase 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 moderately simple tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It captures the action, eligibility, public nature, included fields, and cost. It does not mention repeat submissions or post-submission behavior, but the idempotent annotation and output schema reduce the need for that detail.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds only marginal semantic value by framing the review as 'verified' and 'public,' which indirectly explains the wallet and rating fields, but it does not substantially exceed the schema's own explanations.

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 a specific verb ('Leave') and a specific resource ('a verified public review'), then adds the key condition ('after your first paid call') and the main content elements (star rating, optional video). This clearly distinguishes the tool from all sibling plaza tools, which cover registration, catalogs, badges, and earnings.

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 states clear context for when this tool is appropriate: after a first paid call, and it notes that the call is free. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool competes for the same purpose, so the context is sufficient.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds no behavioral color: it does not disclose the paywalled nature of the operation (implied by the 402 price-quote parameter), the non-idempotent repeat behavior, or the captcha-circumvention implication. It merely restates the title and output 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with zero wasted words and the primary purpose front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 payment mechanism and behavioral quirks (non-idempotent, captcha bypass), the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, there is no usage context, no pricing/payment disclosure, and no differentiation from the scrape siblings—an agent lacks critical routing and expectation-setting information.

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 schema already documents both url and paymentProof well, including the 402-quote fallback. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a clear verb+resource (bypass captcha on a webpage) and a specific output format (clean Markdown), which distinguishes it from the JSON output of sibling scrape.to_json. However, it never names the sibling tools or explicitly states what it is not, so it falls 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus scrape.to_json, scrape.stealth_residential, or analysis.summarize_clean. The description offers no context about selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites—an agent must infer everything from the name and schema.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the $5 USDC cost, the refund-guarantee condition tied to retries=3, and the 50% discount for batch calls. These payment and failure-behavior details are meaningful and not present in the annotations. No contradiction with the readOnly hint, since scraping is a read 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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized as a scannable three-item list. The promotional tone ('3x Features', '$5 USDC') adds a little noise, but no sentence is wasted. It earns its space 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally, and all params are documented at 100% coverage. The description explains the three headline features well. However, it omits the payment mechanics around the wallet param, any rate-limit or concurrency constraints for batch calls, and the conditions under which the refund guarantee actually applies. These gaps matter for a paid tool with 0 required parameters.

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 all five parameters are already documented with their own descriptions. The description adds some extra semantics (50% discount for urls, refund guarantee for retries=3, JSON output for extract), which is genuinely useful above the schema. But the wallet parameter's role is left unexplained in both the description and schema beyond 'your wallet address', and the marketing framing adds little technical meaning. Baseline 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 opens with a clear core capability ('Bypass enterprise bot walls') and the name carries the scrape verb, so an agent can tell this is a stealth web-scraping tool. The three features (extract, retry, batch) clarify what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling scrape.bypass_captcha, which also deals with bot-wall circumvention, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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 lists features but gives no when-to-use guidance and no comparison against alternatives. Siblings like scrape.bypass_captcha and scrape.to_json overlap in domain, yet no condition is given for choosing this tool over them. The only implicit usage signal is the 'bypass bot walls' phrase, which is too weak to route an agent reliably.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond its purpose; notably, the pay-to-use behavior expressed through paymentProof and the 402 price quote is only present in the schema, not the description.

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 with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose clearly and 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 two-parameter tool with full schema descriptions, a specified output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The main contextual gap is the payment/402 behavior, but that is already encoded in the paymentProof parameter description, so an agent can 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional meaning about the html or paymentProof fields, which is acceptable at baseline but does not elevate 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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('clean JSON from messy HTML'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also differentiates itself from siblings like scrape.bypass_captcha and analysis.summarize_clean by focusing on HTML-to-JSON conversion.

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 messy HTML and want JSON') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The schema hint 'if you already fetched the page yourself' is a partial workflow cue, but no sibling comparison or conditional routing is given.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention that the tool requires paymentProof for execution and returns a 402 price quote when omitted, which is a significant behavioral aspect encoded only in the schema. The openWorldHint=true suggests possible external interactions, but the description is silent on that.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is very terse, it does not contain redundant information, and the brevity is not a problem per se, though it sacrifices contextual richness.

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 complexity (payment-gated audit service with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits the payment requirement, any guidance on when to invoke it, and what the audit entails beyond 'backdoors and data drains'. The presence of an output schema covers return format, but the usage context and behavioral caveats are missing, making it insufficient for an agent to call correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information, but it does not need to – the baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not contradict or enrich 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 states a specific purpose: a security audit focused on backdoors and data drains. This is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like security.exploit_research or security.hack_autopsy, though it does not explicitly mention the target 'agent code' – that is only implied from the name/title.

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 prerequisites (like payment), nor does it compare to sibling security tools such as certify_package or exploit_research. There is no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them dropped. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations; notably, it does not mention the paymentProof/402 price quote workflow, which is a key behavioral aspect of this 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 short and contains no wasted words, which is good for conciseness. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices clarity and structure, making it more under-specified than effectively 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 tool has three parameters, a payment flow, and an output schema, but the description leaves out essential context such as what 'certifying' produces, when payment is required, and what the 402 quote flow implies for usage. The annotations and schema cover some aspects, but the description does not provide a complete operational picture.

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 100%, so the baseline is acceptable even though the description itself says nothing about parameters. The description's 'origin of packages' only weakly hints at what name/content represent, and the schema's name/content descriptions are generic, but the paymentProof parameter is well-specified 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 phrase 'Cryptographic seal of origin for packages' gives a general sense that the tool certifies or seals a package's origin, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not say what operation is performed on name/content. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to distinguish this from related security/escrow tools without deeper inspection.

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 'when to use' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools such as security.audit_agent_code or escrow.verify_work. An agent would have to infer use cases from the name and title, which is insufficient.

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?

The description says 'air-gapped AI,' which implies isolation from external networks, while the annotation openWorldHint=true suggests the tool may interact with the outside world. This is a direct contradiction and makes the description actively misleading. No additional behavioral context such as payment/quote behavior or uncensored output is disclosed either.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, which is economical. However, it is more of a tagline than a structured definition, and it omits essential behavioral context while also creating an annotation contradiction. It is concise but under-specified.

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 having an output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain the payment requirement, the 402 quote behavior implied by the schema, the scope of acceptable exploit research, or how this tool relates to the security siblings. The sparse description is not complete enough for an agent to use this tool 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?

Both parameters (prompt and paymentProof) are fully described in the input schema, so the schema carries the documentation burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3 given 100% 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 indicates the tool performs exploit research via an air-gapped AI, and the title adds the 'uncensored' qualifier. However, it reads as a noun phrase rather than a full statement of behavior and does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as security.hack_autopsy or analysis.offline_ai.

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, what prerequisites exist, or how it compares to alternatives. The paymentProof parameter in the schema implies a payment flow, but the description itself gives the agent no routing or selection context.

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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context on top of them. It does not explain the forensic process, the payment gating visible in paymentProof, or any operational caveats. No contradiction exists, but the description is transparent only in a vacuous sense.

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 words is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. There is ample room to add a verb and critical usage context without bloat, so the brevity does not earn credit.

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?

Even with an output schema and fully described schema parameters, the description is far too thin for a complex, payment-related forensic tool. It doesn't explain what to provide in the memory dump, that a missing paymentProof yields a 402 quote, or what an autopsy result looks like. The structured fields prevent a score of 1, but the overall context is still inadequate.

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 itself says nothing about memoryDump or paymentProof. However, schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 despite the absence of parameter detail 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, 'Forensic breach autopsy', is a near-synonym of the title 'Post-Hack Autopsy' and the tool name 'hack_autopsy'. It lacks a verb and concrete action/resource detail, and does nothing to distinguish this tool from security.exploit_research or security.audit_agent_code.

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, what prerequisites exist, or when a sibling should be preferred. There is also no mention of the paymentProof/402-quote flow, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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