styx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation type (ping/liveness), implies read-only behavior, and specifies what is returned (liveness plus Tor exit identity). For a zero-parameter health-check tool, this is appropriately transparent; only minor details such as network assumptions are omitted.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Ping STYX') and then specifies both return values with zero filler. Every word contributes.

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 no-input health check with no output schema, the description tells an agent everything essential: call it to verify liveness and get the Tor exit identity. It is slightly light on usage context relative to its siblings, but complete enough for a tool of this simplicity.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 action ('Ping STYX') and the exact return values (liveness and current Tor exit identity). The resource and operation are unambiguousaint and clearly distinct from the fetching, ordering, renewing, and key-collection siblings.

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 verb 'Ping' implies using this as a liveness/readiness check, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over the sibling tools or any alternative. Usage is only inferred from the action name, not stated.

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 available, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only hints at a precondition (payment) and workflow step. It does not explain side effects, error behavior, or whether the key is returned directly, leaving an agent to guess about failure modes.

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 filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and the parameter's role.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is adequate but has gaps: it does not specify what happens if the order has not been paid, whether the key is returned directly, or any authentication requirements. An agent may still be unsure how to handle errors.

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 description explains that 'order_id' is the identifier used to collect the key, adding meaning beyond the bare schema property name. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more could be said about expected format or relationship to the invoice.

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 a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('API key') with a required parameter ('order_id'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the object and parameter are specific enough to be distinct.

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 clear context by stating 'After paying the invoice', which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the conditional preposition is reasonable guidance for a simple retrieval 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 provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether authentication is required beyond the API key, or what happens on invalid keys. The behavior is under-disclosed, leaving the agent to infer safety 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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, making it easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It does not describe what the response contains (e.g., a number of credits, a formatted string) nor any error cases. An agent lacks information about the return value and the exact usage of the api_key parameter, making it hard to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 a single api_key parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain its role beyond the phrase 'your STYX key'. It does not clarify that the api_key parameter is the STYX key, nor does it provide format, requirements, or default behavior. The description adds negligible value to the parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'remaining credits on your STYX key'. It is specific and distinct from siblings like styx_renew (renewing credits) or styx_order (ordering credits). The scope is unambiguous, so an agent can easily tell what this tool does.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing a valid STYX key, nor does it note that it is a read-only operation compared to mutating tools like styx_renew or styx_order. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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. It does disclose two genuinely useful operational facts — a paid STYX key is required and each call consumes 1 credit — which tells the agent this is a costly, gated operation. However, it says nothing about response format, failure behavior, timeouts, or whether credits are consumed on failed fetches, which are material gaps for a paid operation.

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 totaling about 16 words, with the primary action front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence earns its place by disclosing the cost and key prerequisite, which an agent must know before invoking. Nothing extraneous 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the 16-word description carries the full context load. It covers what the tool does and its cost, but omits how to obtain the required key (siblings exist for this), what the fetch returns, and what happens on failure or invalid keys — relevant gaps for a credit-consuming tool. A few more sentences would materially improve call correctness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'Fetch a URL' clarifies url, and 'Requires a paid STYX key' gives real meaning to api_key (not just any string, but a paid STYX key). It stops short of specifying key format, how to obtain one, or what the empty default implies, so it adds value over the bare schema but does not fully document the parameters.

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?

"Fetch a URL through the Tor network" states a specific verb (fetch), a concrete resource (URL), and the routing context (Tor network). This cleanly distinguishes it from its siblings (styx_beacon, styx_credits, styx_order, styx_renew, styx_collect_key), which are all about key management or credit operations, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it never mentions the sibling tools that relate to acquiring the required key (styx_order, styx_collect_key). The only condition stated is the paid-key prerequisite, which is a constraint rather than usage direction, so the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation and what it returns, and it adds the 'min 100' constraint. However, it does not say whether the invoice expires, whether credits are credited automatically after payment, or any other 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action, includes the key constraint, and lists the returned fields. Every phrase earns its place with 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter constraint, and the return values. It is slightly incomplete because it does not connect this order to the surrounding sibling workflow, such as how the returned order_id is used after payment.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by stating that credits are for 'STYX credits' and imposing the meaningful minimum of 100. The single parameter's purpose is reasonably inferable, though the description stops short of explaining how credits convert to an invoice amount.

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 action and resource: 'Create a BTCPay invoice for STYX credits.' It also tells the agent what the tool returns ('order_id + checkout_link'), making it clearly distinct from any balance-checking, renewal, or key-collection sibling.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like styx_credits or styx_renew. The intent to create a payment invoice is implied, but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or workflow 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the action and the 1-credit cost; it does not disclose side effects like whether the current circuit is invalidated, whether the operation is reversible, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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, front-loaded sentence that packs the action, object, and cost with zero wasted words. It is concise and clear.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It omits any mention of the api_key parameter, fails to explain behavior around the existing session, and provides no information about expected results or side effects. This is under-specified for a tool with these contextual 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 sole parameter api_key is entirely undocumented: schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot infer the parameter's purpose, format, or whether it needs to be provided, despite it being optional.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('Rotate') and resource ('fresh Tor circuit/identity'), which clearly states what the tool does. This action is also distinct from the sibling tools (styx_fetch, styx_order, etc.), allowing an agent to differentiate it without inspecting schemas.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The phrase 'Rotate to a fresh Tor circuit/identity' implies a use case but does not provide routing context or compare with sibling tools.

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