Tantra Authority Catalog

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that for buyable products, it fetches a live payment block from a real x402 challenge, indicating a real-time network call. Does not mention errors or rate limits, but is generally transparent.

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 paragraph with no wasted words, but lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) and uses run-on punctuation. It efficiently conveys key details.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned data (price, category, description, bundle, cover, live payment block) and conditions (buyable products). No 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'id' parameter described as 'Catalog product id (see search_products or list_categories).' The description only adds that it is a 'catalog id', providing minimal extra meaning beyond 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 specifically states 'Full detail on one product by catalog id' and enumerates returned fields (price, category, description, bundle contents, cover, live payment block). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_products (list) and list_categories.

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 implicitly directs use by catalog id from sibling tools but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It mentions 'for buyable products' but does not state exclusions 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 must fully disclose behavior. It describes the output (payment steps with live values) but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or whether it is read-only. For a tool that likely executes no mutations, this is a gap.

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, concise and front-loaded. Every part adds value, 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should fully explain the return. It mentions 'ordered steps' with specific values, but lacks detail on format (e.g., JSON, text). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100%, with the parameter 'id' described as 'Catalog product id.' The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 the tool retrieves a step-by-step x402 payment sequence for buying a product, including specific values. It distinguishes well from siblings like get_product (product details) and search_products (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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies using it when needing payment steps, but does not contrast with siblings or mention 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 carries the full burden and adds important behavioral context: categories are heuristically derived from id/title, and the catalog API has no native category field. This sets proper expectations about data quality.

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. The purpose and derivation are front-loaded, earning each sentence's 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's function and its heuristic limitation, leaving no obvious 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?

There are no parameters, so the description needs no parameter-level details. Baseline 4 applies as the description adds no unnecessary overhead.

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 lists categories from the live catalog with product counts, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product or search_products by focusing on category-level aggregation.

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 obtaining an overview of categories, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. However, the context is clear enough given the tool's simplicity.

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, so description carries full burden. It details return fields including attribution URL, indicating read-only behavior. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, data freshness, or authentication needs. The description is transparent about what the tool does but could include more behavioral guarantees.

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 concise: one sentence stating purpose followed by return fields. No unnecessary words. However, it could be restructured with a clear separation between function and output for easier scanning.

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 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It lacks mention of pagination or result limits, but for a likely small catalog this is acceptable. Overall complete for its complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds the concept of 'search by keyword, price ceiling, and/or category' which mirrors the parameters but doesn't provide additional nuance beyond what the schema says.

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 tool as a search over 'Lawrence Lanoff's live digital-product catalog' with specific filters (keyword, price, category) and lists return fields. This distinguishes it from siblings: get_product (specific product), how_to_buy (purchase process), list_categories (just categories).

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 implied (search for products) but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs siblings like get_product or how_to_buy. The description mentions empty query returns whole catalog, which is helpful but doesn't provide exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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