payanagent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that reputation is 'live-computed' and lists included fields. However, it does not mention read-only nature, error behavior, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 front-loads the key purpose and usage hint. It is efficiently written without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is missing critical details: parameter explanations, return format, and behavioral constraints. The tool has moderate complexity, but the description is incomplete.

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

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

The input schema has 3 parameters (agentId, side, limit) with 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to mention any parameters, so it provides no added meaning. The agentId is implied by the tool name, but side and limit are completely unexplained.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides an agent's receipt history and live-computed reputation (trust score, sales, distinct buyers), indicating a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like payanagent_receipts_feed, but the focus on a single agent's data is implicit.

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 explicitly says 'Use before buying,' giving clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a typical use case.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the server never holds wallet keys, is anonymous, returns cryptographic terms and a buy URL, and requires no account. This gives a clear picture of the tool's safety and data flow. The description does not contradict any annotations as none exist.

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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds relevant information: purpose, universal route, anonymity, key handling, and results. No redundant or filler content.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's return value (terms and URL), authentication (anonymous), and parameter usage (offerId, input per offer). It is complete enough for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention response format limitations or edge cases.

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 50% (only 'input' has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining that 'input' should follow the offer's inputSchema and that 'offerId' is used in the URL path. However, it does not detail the structure of 'input' or provide examples, leaving the agent to infer from the offer's schema. This adds some value but not full compensation 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves x402 payment terms for any offer, specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'payment terms'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on payment terms rather than listing or discovery. However, the name 'payanagent_buy' and title 'Get purchase terms' create a slight mismatch that could confuse an agent about whether it performs a buy or just returns terms.

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 mentions an alternative for automatic purchases (running a local MCP client), implying that this tool is for viewing terms before buying. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like payanagent_get_offer (which might also provide some offer details). The guidance is present 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions trust scores, which adds value, but omits key details like read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description adds some context but has gaps.

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

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

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though a slightly more structured format could improve readability.

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 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination, sorting, authentication, or the full return structure beyond mentioning trust scores. For a discovery tool, users need more context about result patterns.

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 50% (limit and query have descriptions; category and maxPriceCents do not). The description does not clarify category or maxPriceCents, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only restates query as free-text, which is already 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 description clearly states the tool searches the PayanAgent marketplace, specifying the scope ('24,000+ live x402 services... plus agents and open requests') and mentions receipt-derived trust scores. It contrasts well with sibling tools like payanagent_list_offers or payanagent_buy.

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 for discovery but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a broad free-text search is needed rather than specific lookups with payanagent_get_offer or payanagent_list_offers.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'public details', suggesting read-only behavior, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or potential errors. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It includes the verb, resource, and key data points, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 description covers the basics of what the tool does, but lacks information on return format, error handling, or pagination. It is adequate for a simple get-by-ID tool but could be more 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 0%, so the description should explain the parameter. It mentions 'by id' which maps to offerId, but does not describe format, validation, or examples. With one parameter, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema itself.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'public details of a single offer by id', and lists example fields (price, schemas, seller reputation). It distinguishes from siblings like list_offers which returns multiple offers.

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 a specific offer ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_offers or discover. No exclusions or when-not guidance 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only conveys that it lists/filters offers. It lacks behavioral details such as default behavior, pagination, ordering, or any side effects, which would help an agent understand its traits.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the key verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but omits details like return format, possible categories or offer types, and any rate limits. It is minimally adequate.

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

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

The input schema has 3 parameters with only 33% description coverage (only limit has a description in schema). The tool description adds no explanation for category or offerType, leaving their meaning unclear.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (list or filter), the resource (offers for sale), and the platform (PayanAgent). It explicitly distinguishes from a free-text query tool, likely referring to the sibling 'payanagent_discover'.

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 listing/filtering offers without a free-text query, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'signed and backed by an on-chain tx' implying integrity, but does not disclose key behaviors such as whether authentication is required (despite 'public'), rate limits, polling intervals, or data ordering. The input schema's default limit and range are not mentioned in 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 that immediately conveys the core purpose. No extraneous words; every word adds value.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not explain how the feed is ordered, how often it updates, or how to handle pagination. The presence of sibling tools suggests more context about filtering could be helpful but is missed.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage, with a single parameter 'limit' fully described (range and default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states it's a 'live public feed of settlements across the marketplace,' specifying the resource (receipts/settlements) and the action (feed). It distinguishes from siblings like 'payanagent_agent_receipts' which imply agent-specific filtering, and 'payanagent_buy' which is a transaction action.

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 like 'payanagent_agent_receipts' for filtered results. There is no mention of prerequisites, allowed use cases, or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools is not leveraged in the description.

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