SCRIPTMASTERLABS — SML token-verdict

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 mentions prices and 402 terms but does not explain what '402 terms' means, whether authentication is required, how the catalog is returned, or any 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 a single short phrase with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that key details are omitted rather than efficiently conveyed.

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 zero-parameter catalog tool with no output schema, the description gives a minimal indication of content (prices, 402 terms) but does not explain the return format or the meaning of '402 terms'. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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. There is no parameter meaning to add beyond the empty 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 identifies the resource as a machine-readable catalog containing prices and 402 terms, but it does not state the action (e.g., retrieve, list) or differentiate this tool from the sibling token-risk tools. The purpose is inferable but vague.

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 this tool versus the token-risk alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or expected context. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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 the description adds material context beyond that: the call is paid ($0.015 via x402), the verdict is deterministic, the result includes confidence and a signed receipt, and only three chains are supported. It omits error/payment-failure behavior and rate limits, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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

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

Two tight sentences with the core purpose and the return shape front-loaded; every clause carries information. The inline pricing/URL string is dense but serves routing and cost-awareness, so it earns its place.

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

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

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return payload (verdict, reasons, confidence, signed receipt). Given only two parameters and a readOnly annotation, the remaining gaps—verdict scale, payment failure handling, chain default semantics—are modest.

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 50%, so the description should carry meaning the schema lacks. Instead, 'Query: address, chain (base|ethereum|bsc)' simply restates the schema's address description and chain enum, adding nothing about the default chain behavior or what address classes are accepted.

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: a deterministic on-chain risk verdict for one token/contract address, plus the exact return payload (reasons, confidence, signed receipt). The GET endpoint URL implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling token-risk-post, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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

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

Usage is only implied: 'for one token/contract address' plus the chain enumeration tells an agent the scope, and the GET endpoint hints at the POST variant. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over token-risk-post, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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?

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses genuinely important behavior: a $0.015 cost, payment via x402, and the concrete endpoint URL. It does not describe the response shape, but for a paid read endpoint the cost/payment disclosure is the critical operational fact.

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?

Very compact, but the parenthetical stacking is dense and 'POST' is stated twice (once as a label, once in the URL), a small redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded, yet the compressed syntax costs 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?

Covers what the tool returns, cost, endpoint, and accepted body fields, which is most of what an agent needs before calling a paid read endpoint. Missing is any explicit relationship statement versus the token-risk sibling and any note on response content, leaving gaps for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 body notation '{tokenAddress|address, chain}' adds real meaning the schema lacks: that tokenAddress and address are interchangeable aliases. However, with only 33% schema description coverage, neither the alias priority nor the chain values/default are explained, so the 3-param surface is only partially clarified.

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 the specific resource (a token risk verdict) and the transport variant (POST), and 'Same verdict' implies it mirrors the sibling token-risk tool. It is distinguishable from the sibling, though the phrasing is telegraphic and 'AX1-compatible body' is unexplained jargon.

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

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer to pick this variant when it needs a POST body or x402 payment, since it yields the same verdict as the sibling. There is no explicit when-not guidance or direct naming of token-risk as the alternative.

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