Iron City

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

The phrase 'Free to read' indicates a non-destructive read operation, but no further behavioral details (e.g., authentication, rate limits, return format) are provided. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is minimally adequate.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple list operation, the description covers the essential functionality. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the output format or typical use cases. Still, it is largely 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?

There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline is 4, and the description correctly omits param details.

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 verb 'List' clearly specifies the action, and the resource is described as 'open oracle-judged challenges incl. the drone Hover-Hold arena.' This is distinct from sibling tools which are all different in nature (e.g., calc, cargo_check, etc.), so the tool's purpose is 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 implies usage for listing challenges but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since there are no similar sibling tools, the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable, but the description could still mention typical scenarios.

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 provided, and the description fails to explain important behaviors: that this is a paid tool (cost 1 iron-cent) and that it returns a toll via x402 protocol, but doesn't clarify what x402 is or whether it causes side effects. The agent is left guessing about the cost mechanism and side effects.

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 short (one sentence), but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The phrase 'PAID (1 iron-cent) — tools/call returns the toll to pay via x402' is dense and ambiguous, not 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?

Given no output schema, low contextual signals, and cryptic description, the tool is incomplete. The agent cannot understand what the return value is, how to format the expression, or what the toll calculation entails.

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 one parameter 'expr' with no description and the description does not explain what 'expr' should contain (e.g., a mathematical expression, a calculation type). Schema description coverage is 0%, and no additional meaning is provided.

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 says 'Arithmetic' which gives a basic category, and mentions it's paid and returns a toll, but doesn't specify what arithmetic operation or how it relates to the toll. It's not completely missing but lacks specificity.

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 on when to use this tool over siblings like market_draft or quote. The description implies it's for computing a toll payment, but doesn't state 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?

With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is paid (5 iron-cents) and runs in a sealed sandbox, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not explain what happens on compilation failure, the format of the return (toll vs. output), or any 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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the action. Every phrase adds value (sandbox, payment). However, the sentence structure could be clearer, and 'returns the toll' is ambiguous.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers core behavior (compilation, sandbox, payment) but omits return value specifics (e.g., does it return compilation output or just cost?) and error scenarios. Given the lack of output schema, this is a noticeable gap.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The only parameter 'code' is not explicitly described; the description implies it should be Rust source code but does not state it clearly. No additional constraints or formatting details are provided.

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 specifies the verb 'Verify' and the resource 'Rust compiles', distinguishing it from sibling tools like code_review and calc. The mention of 'sealed sandbox' and 'PAID (5 iron-cents)' adds specificity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., code_review). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or which contexts are 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 provided; description only mentions it's free to read but omits details on read-only behavior, rate limits, or pagination.

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?

Extremely concise, two sentences front-loading the purpose followed by a brief note; 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?

Lacks details on output structure, pagination, or filtering; even with no parameters, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

No parameters exist, and the description adds value by clarifying the pricing unit (iron-cents), which is not inferable from 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 that the tool lists services and their prices with a specific unit conversion, distinguishing it as a data retrieval tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'arena_list' or 'city_info', nor any context for appropriate usage.

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 only mentions it's 'free to read,' which implies a read-only operation, but fails to disclose any other behavioral traits or constraints.

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 concise sentence that gets the point across without unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured but remains 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?

With no output schema, the description partially explains what the tool returns (info about Iron City and entry/payment). However, it lacks detail on the format or breadth of information, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose, though it does not need to elaborate on parameter meaning.

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 provides information about Iron City, including entry and payment. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calc' or 'arena_list' by focusing on a specific city's info.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'free to read' hints at no cost but offers no explicit context for selection.

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 mentions it is paid and returns a toll, but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether it is read-only. With no annotations, the description fails to fully convey behavioral 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, but could be slightly expanded 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?

Despite simple tool (one param, no output schema), description lacks explanation of return value (ambiguous 'toll'), error handling, or example usage. Incomplete for reliable 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 has one parameter 'code' with 0% description coverage. The description adds context by implying the parameter is Rust code, but lacks detail on format or constraints. Baseline for low coverage is partially compensated.

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 runs rustc lints/warnings on Rust code, specifying the resource (Rust code) and action (linting). It distinguishes from siblings like cargo_check by mentioning it's paid and returns a toll, but could be more precise about the output.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cargo_check. The description implies it's for Rust linting but lacks conditions for use or exclusion 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?

No annotations are provided. The description mentions the tool is PAID (15 iron-cents), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors, side effects, or requirements (e.g., authentication, 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 very concise (2 sentences). It front-loads the main action and cost. However, it is too minimal, missing critical details that would aid tool invocation.

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 schema (1 string param, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain expected input format, output, or how it fits with sibling tools.

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 sole parameter 'job' has no description in the schema or tool description. Schema coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify what 'job' represents (e.g., a prompt, job ID, or text).

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 it writes copy, which is a verb+resource. However, it does not clarify what 'market' refers to or distinguish it from sibling tools like market_explain. The purpose is generally clear but lacks specificity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., market_explain, market_review) but no exclusions or context are 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?

Discloses that the tool is paid ('PAID (10 iron-cents)'), which is a behavioral trait. However, no other behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions) are provided, and no annotations exist to compensate.

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?

Extremely brief but not effective; the single sentence is under-specifying, not concise in a helpful way. Key information is missing.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient to understand the tool's purpose and 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?

Input schema has one required param 'job' with 0% description coverage. Description does not explain what 'job' means or expects, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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 is vague: 'iron-explain-co explains it.' Does not specify what 'it' refers to or what the tool actually does. The tool name suggests market explanation, but no detail is given.

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 on when to use vs alternatives. Sibling tools like market_draft and market_review exist, but description offers no differentiation or 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?

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavior. It indicates a paid review action, but fails to describe side effects, authentication needs, or what happens to the input. 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 a single short sentence, but it omits critical details. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of usefulness, earning a middle score.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify input format and return value. It only states the high-level action and cost, lacking completeness for reliable selection and 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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the single parameter 'job'. The overall purpose suggests it might be code content or a reference, but no specifics are given, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'reviews your code' which gives a basic verb+resource, but the mention of 'iron-review-co (captain-backed)' introduces brand ambiguity. It does not clearly differentiate from the sibling 'code_review', leading to potential confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code_review'. The only additional information is a cost note ('PAID (30 iron-cents)'), but no usage context or exclusions 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get quote') but does not mention whether it is read-only, if it incurs cost, has side effects, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool that likely involves economic actions.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose with an example. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.

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 the tool having only one parameter, the description lacks completeness: it does not explain what the quote looks like (e.g., a number, object), how to interpret it, or what actions to take afterward. For a tool involving payment, this is a significant gap.

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 parameter 'resource' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning by providing an example ('tool/cargo_check'), indicating the resource is something like a tool identifier. However, it does not specify format or constraints beyond a simple string.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'x402 payment quote' with an example like 'tool/cargo_check'. It clearly indicates the tool provides a quote for a resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'cargo_check' or 'calc' other than by the example's hint at context.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives an example but lacks context for decision-making, such as prerequisites or 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.