SCRIPTMASTERLABS — Perpetual Roadmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: there is no cost ('Free.') and the output deliberately omits the projection, which prevents an agent from calling it expecting a forecast. It does not describe freshness, caching, or failure behavior.

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

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the cost signal and the scope, with the negative constraint placed last where it reads as a caveat. 'Free.' as a fragment is terse but earns its place as a routing signal; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so by naming the four provenance elements while explicitly excluding the projection. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is close to sufficient, though the response shape/format remains unspecified.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but there is a single parameter whose allowed values are fully encoded as an enum (AMC/GME), making it self-documenting. The description only echoes those values ('for AMC or GME') and adds no meaning such as whether the symbol selects a data universe or a cached run.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Provenance preview of the current roadmap run') and enumerates the exact contents it returns: data providers, cross-check, reference archive, input hash. It also draws a scope boundary ('Does not include the projection'), but never names perpetual_status or perpetual_x402_contract to differentiate itself from 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?

'Free.' plus the exclusion of the projection implicitly signals this is the cheap, audit-oriented entry point, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of perpetual_status or perpetual_x402_contract. The agent must infer the routing from cost and content hints.

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 and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context such as 'Free' and mentions data freshness and last completed session, which go beyond 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?

It is a single compact sentence with the most important qualifier ('Free') front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly dense but earns its 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?

There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains the return shape: service status, per-symbol buy availability, last completed session, and data freshness. No input parameters means little else is needed.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still clarifies that output includes per-symbol AMC/GME status and freshness, adding meaning despite the empty input 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 identifies the resource as service status plus per-symbol availability and freshness data. It is specific about what is returned, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling preview and contract tools.

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

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

It implies a status-check use case but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to perpetual_preview or perpetual_x402_contract.

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 and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond that: the call is free, no payment transaction occurs here, and the response carries the header names an agent needs to construct the out-of-band HTTP payment.

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, no filler, and the most important constraint — that it is free and that payment happens elsewhere — is front-loaded. Every clause adds information the agent needs.

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

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so by listing the exact fields returned. Combined with the free/no-payment caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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

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

The tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline this sits at 4. The description does add one useful clarification the empty schema cannot convey: the terms pertain to an endpoint whose path includes a {symbol}, which tells the agent the returned terms are symbol-scoped.

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

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

The description names the exact resource (x402 v2 payment terms for GET /v1/roadmap/{symbol}) and enumerates the fields returned (price, network, asset, payTo, header names). It does not explicitly contrast itself with perpetual_preview or perpetual_status, but 'Payment is made over HTTP, not through this tool' separates it from any sibling that would perform the actual call.

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

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

It clearly establishes the context of use (fetch terms before paying for the protected endpoint) and gives an explicit exclusion: payment is not performed through this tool. It does not spell out a 'call this first, then pay over HTTP' sequence or name the sibling tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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