seller-funded-verification-bond

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses pricing ($0.005/call) and the key payment/refusal behavior over MCP, which is valuable, but it does not say what a successful response contains, what error is returned on refusal, or what auth/payment details the HTTP surface requires.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loads the query and pricing, but the dash-separated payment notes read more like a usage caveat than a clean description of the tool's behavior. There is no wasted filler, but the structure muddles capability with payment routing.

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 status-query tool with no output schema, the description should indicate what is returned or at least what success looks like, and it should clarify bond_id. Instead it mostly explains payment routing, leaving key invocation context missing.

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 is one required integer parameter, bond_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It never mentions bond_id, leaving the agent with only the parameter name and no meaning beyond what is obvious.

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?

"Bonded-status query" names a resource and action, but the rest of the description focuses on payment mechanics and never explains what "bonded status" means or how this differs from sibling status tools like slash_status. An agent can infer a status lookup but not the specific purpose.

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 explicitly says paid work is refused over MCP and directs payments to the HTTP x402 surface at POST /status, which is a clear operational exclusion and alternative. However, it gives no guidance on whether this MCP tool has any valid use case, such as a preview, and does not relate it to siblings.

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 and does so well: it discloses that the operation is mutating, that this MCP tool refuses execution, and that bearer-token authentication is required for the HTTP alternative. These are the key behavioral facts an agent needs before attempting a call.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and immediately provides the critical refusal and alternative. Every clause earns its place: mutation warning, MCP refusal, replacement endpoint, and auth requirement.

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 description is complete for a tool whose primary purpose is to redirect the agent to an HTTP endpoint. It covers the operation's nature, why the MCP call will fail, and exactly what to do instead, leaving no relevant 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema is consistent with the redirect-only nature of the tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'File a probe result / drawdown against a bond,' and explicitly labels the operation as mutating. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as bonded_status_query and verify_receipt.

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 states exactly when the tool cannot be used ('refused over MCP') and supplies the correct alternative: POST /bonds/<id>/probe-result with a bearer token. There is no ambiguity about whether an agent should invoke this tool.

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 present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation is mutating, fee-bearing, and refused over MCP. The payment requirement is also surfaced via the x402 reference.

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 tightly packed sentence with the key constraints front-loaded: mutation, fee, MCP refusal, and the correct alternative. No sentence is wasted.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential selection and safety context. Minor ambiguity remains around what “TEST/STUB” means in practice, but the operational guidance is complete enough to prevent misuse.

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 under the rubric. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add beyond 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 gives a specific verb and resource: posting a TEST/STUB bond against a pinned claim. It is clear what the tool nominally does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools in the list.

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 explicitly says the operation is refused over MCP and directs the agent to use POST /bonds with x402 payment instead. This is a clear when-not-to-use rule paired with a concrete alternative.

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 behavioral burden and does so well: it declares the operation mutating, states that MCP invocation is refused, and points to the authenticated alternative. No relevant behavioral trait is hidden.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that covers action, mutation status, refusal condition, and fallback. Every clause earns its place with 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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains that the tool is unusable over MCP and directs the agent to the correct authenticated endpoint. Nothing needed for correct selection behavior is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain input semantics, and the alternative endpoint's path/parameter needs are noted only incidentally.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Re-pin a suspended bond') and immediately discloses its operational status ('refused over MCP'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like post_bond or bonded_status_query, and an agent can tell exactly what the tool would do and why it cannot be invoked.

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 explicitly says the tool is refused over MCP and names the alternative HTTP endpoint with required bearer-token auth. There is no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus the alternative: never invoke it via MCP; call POST /bonds/<id>/repin instead.

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 disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the auth constraint that causes failure and the per-operator scoping of results. It stops short of describing what the slash-status payload contains or what an operator would actually see, which is the only remaining 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?

A single dense clause-packed sentence with the failure constraint and the fallback path front-loaded. No filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an agent everything needed to decide not to call it and what to do instead. The one omission is what "slash status" semantically returns, though that is moot given the tool is unusable over MCP.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The note that the operation is per-operator scoped hints at an implicit identity input.

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?

"Slash status of a bond" identifies the resource (a bond's slash status) but reads as a noun phrase with no explicit verb, so the agent must infer that it returns/reads status. It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling bonded_status_query.

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 states plainly that the tool is refused over MCP (no auth) and names the exact alternative: POST /bonds/<id>/slash-status with a bearer token. That is an explicit when-not-to-use plus a concrete substitute, which is the strongest form of routing 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tariff is 'pinned' and 'versioned,' which hints at immutability, but says nothing about whether the tool reads data, requires auth, or returns anything. The disclosure is too thin for a no-annotation tool.

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, efficient phrase, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks a front-loaded action or purpose statement that would orient the agent immediately.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description must carry almost all context. It does not state what the tool returns, how the tariff is accessed, or what 'pinned, versioned' means operationally, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain, and the empty schema is self-evident.

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 a specific domain object ('probe-cost tariff') and adds qualifiers ('published, pinned, versioned'), but it omits a verb or action. An agent cannot tell whether the tool retrieves, publishes, lists, or validates the tariff.

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 alternatives. None of the sibling tools are mentioned, and no context or prerequisites 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not explain what verification entails, whether the operation is read-only, what errors or outcomes may occur, or what permissions are needed.

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 with no redundant or wasted language. Its brevity is appropriate for the sentence itself, though other dimensions capture the missing detail.

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 a nested object input, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse to be complete. It omits what the receipt contains, what verification means, and what the tool returns.

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 is one required nested object parameter ('receipt') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about its structure, required fields, format, or expected content.

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 a specific verb ('verify') and resource ('signed receipt envelope'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from any sibling tool, though most siblings are unrelated.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and one-line purpose.

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