marketplace

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains atomic behavior, no async polling, optional echo of receipt reference, and privacy constraint. All key behavioral aspects are disclosed.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core functionality, atomic nature, optional parameter, privacy constraint. No redundant or irrelevant information. Front-loaded with main action.

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 single optional parameter, no output schema, and behavioral transparency, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No missing details.

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% for the single parameter. Description adds meaning beyond schema by clarifying that receipt_reference is echoed, not used for lookup. Provides important context.

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 clearly states the tool verifies/explains delivery for an x402 purchase, specifies the atomic nature distinguishing it from async delivery tools. Differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on delivery checking.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for x402 delivery verification) and what not to do (not exposing other parties' records). Could be improved by mentioning scenarios where alternatives like list_rocketcore_products might be preferred.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Free' implying no cost, and the tool is read-only (returns summary). However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the data is cached or real-time.

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 that front-loads the key purpose ('Return marketplace summary') and then lists specifics. No wasted words.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists the main data points returned. Minor omission: does not mention if any authentication is needed or if the data is always up-to-date.

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 zero parameters (schema is empty), the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing what the output includes (product counts, categories, etc.), explaining the semantics of the tool's return data.

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 returns a marketplace summary including specific items like product counts, live count, categories, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_rocketcore_products (which lists products) and get_rocketcore_quote (quotes) by focusing on overall status.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., list_rocketcore_products) or mention any prerequisites or contexts where it is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds only that quoting is free and does not pay, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, authentication, or error handling.

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, front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence adds useful context about cost. No redundancy, but could be more structured.

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 returns a structured quote with multiple fields, and the description lists them. However, it does not explain output interpretation, prerequisites, or when to use this vs. sibling tools like inspect_rocketcore_product.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the only parameter product_id. The description adds minimal value by saying 'for a product' but does not explain the format, source, or constraints of product_id.

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 returns exact price and x402 payment terms for a product. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the output field list distinguishes it from siblings like list or search.

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 'Free; quoting does not pay,' giving context that no payment is involved. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_rocketcore_product or invoke_rocketcore_product.

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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'full public manifest' and lists contents, implying a safe read operation. However, it omits details about authorization, rate limits, or potential errors, though the action (inspect) is inherently non-destructive.

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 very concise: a single sentence plus 'Free.' It wastes no words but could benefit from slight structuring or a hint about the product_id source. The minimalism here is effective.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate overview of the return content. However, it lacks guidance on input (e.g., how to get product_id) and does not mention potential pitfalls like missing or invalid IDs.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain the product_id parameter, such as its format or how to obtain valid IDs (e.g., from sibling tools). This leaves the agent guessing about acceptable values.

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 defines the action ('Return the full public manifest for one product') and specifies the resource (product manifest with details like schemas, pricing, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rocketcore_products (lists all) and search_rocketcore_products (search) by focusing on a single product.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to call it vs. list_rocketcore_products or search_rocketcore_products. The only additional note is 'Free,' which hints at no cost but does not address usage context 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?

With no annotations, the description fully conveys the critical behavioral trait: the server never pays, returning payment terms for the agent to handle. It also explains the two-step process and the unified response containing data and receipt. This goes beyond minimal disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering purpose, behavior, and workflow. Every word adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a high-level understanding of return values (endpoint, payment terms, data, receipt) but lacks specificity about the exact structure or fields. For a tool with two parameters, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete regarding the response format.

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 adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the input schema provides. The schema itself describes one parameter (product_id) minimally and leaves the other (params) partially described. With 50% schema coverage, the description could have elaborated but did not.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns everything needed for the agent to invoke a paid product over x402, distinguishing it from sibling tools that check delivery, quotes, or listings. The verb 'invoke' and the specific resource 'paid product' make the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into a workflow with siblings like get_rocketcore_quote or check_rocketcore_delivery.

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 discloses that the tool is read-only and free, and lists the fields returned (status, price, endpoint). This is good transparency for a simple list tool, though it lacks details on pagination or rate limits.

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

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

The description is two short sentences, zero wasted words, and front-loaded with the action and resource. 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 simple list tool with two optional filters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, returned fields, and cost/safety. It could be more complete by specifying that it returns all products when no filters are applied, but overall it's sufficient.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (status enum and category string). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'RocketCore Intel Marketplace products', and specifies the returned attributes (status, price, endpoint). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'inspect_rocketcore_product' or 'search_rocketcore_products'.

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, read-only' as context, but does not explicitly guide on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_rocketcore_products' or 'recommend_rocketcore_product'. Usage is implied but not specified.

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 the full burden. It states the tool is deterministic, uses no LLM, and is free. These are valuable behavioral traits beyond what annotations would provide. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects, which slightly lowers the score.

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 that packs essential information: the action (recommend), the resource (LIVE products), the input (task), the output (explanations), and key behavioral traits (deterministic, no LLM, free). No filler words; it is front-loaded with core purpose.

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 complexity of 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter meanings, return format, error handling (e.g., no matches), or how recommendations are computed. The agent would need to infer parameter usage from names alone, which is risky. The description covers the high-level purpose but lacks detail for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema has no descriptions for parameters. The tool description only mentions 'task' implicitly ('described task') but does not explain any of the four parameters (task, limit, category, max_price) in terms of format, constraints, or usage. The agent receives no added meaning beyond the schema's type and defaults.

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 recommends best-matching LIVE products for a described task with explanations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, search, and inspect by focusing on recommendation based on task description. The mention of 'Deterministic, no LLM. Free' further clarifies its unique behavior.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name 'recommend' implies usage for task-based recommendations, no guidance is given on when to use list_rocketcore_products or search_rocketcore_products instead. Implicit context from sibling names helps, but explicit guidance is missing.

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. It clearly states the search is deterministic, uses weighted keyword and natural-language matching, and is free. However, it doesn't mention result behavior (e.g., pagination, sorting) or confirm it's read-only.

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, focused sentence that provides key information up front. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description covers core behavior but lacks information on result format, sorting, and when to use alternatives.

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 only 20% (only query has a description). The description adds no further parameter details beyond the schema. The baseline is lowered due to high uncovered parameters, and the description does not compensate.

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

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

Description explicitly states 'Task-focused search over RocketCore products,' specifies the matching mechanism (deterministic weighted keyword + natural-language match), clarifies it is not LLM-based, and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rocketcore_products and recommend_rocketcore_product.

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?

Implies use for searching products but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like recommend_rocketcore_product or list_rocketcore_products. No context on exclusions or prerequisites.

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