titan

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 discloses that the tool is free and needs no key, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe the output format, potential side effects, or whether it's strictly read-only. For a status check, this is likely a safe read, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 verb and resource, then adds a critical qualifier (free, no key). No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the action and access requirements, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It could mention what the returned status looks like, but for a simple check this is a minor 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information since none exist, and the schema confirms this.

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 ('Check') and resource ('TITAN GPU compute status'), and adds 'free, no key needed' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like titan_collect_key. An agent can immediately understand what it does without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear context that it's free and requires no key, implying it's a low-friction status check. While it doesn't explicitly name when to use it versus siblings, the purpose is distinct enough (status vs. key collection, credits, generation, ordering) that an agent can infer 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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and condition; it does not mention what the call returns (presumably the key), whether it is read-only, any prerequisites beyond payment, or possible side effects. This is a significant 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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it omits necessary details that are scored elsewhere.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a completely undocumented parameter, the description provides only the high-level purpose. An agent lacks the information needed to invoke it correctly, such as what order_id means and what response to expect.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'order_id' parameter at all. It does not clarify what an order_id is, how to obtain it, or any format expectations, 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 clearly states a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('TITAN API key') with a condition ('after paying (status=settled)'). This distinguishes it from sister tools like titan_order or titan_generate by implying it is the settlement step, but it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 an explicit trigger condition: use after payment when status=settled. This is clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it offers no exclusions or explicit alternative routing.

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 burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that credits are checked but does not explain whether the operation is read-only, what the response will contain, how a missing api_key is handled, or whether any side effects or rate limits apply.

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 filler content. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it highly 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent can expect from the tool, such as the format of the credit count or how the api_key parameter is used. It only states the action, leaving the return value and default-key behavior unspecified.

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%, and the description only mentions 'API key' without elaborating on the api_key parameter's semantics, defaults, or behavior when omitted. Since the schema documents only the parameter name and default, the description adds minimal value and does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Check') and a clear resource ('remaining credits for an API key'), which accurately states the tool's function. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which suggest generation, ordering, and key collection operations rather than a credit balance lookup.

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 makes the context clear: use this tool when you need to know how many credits remain for an API key. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling appears to offer a credit-check function, so the usage context is sufficiently evident.

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 discloses that the tool costs 1 credit and requires an API key, which are important behavioral traits not visible in the schema or annotations. However, it doesn't mention what happens on failure (e.g., insufficient credits, invalid key), rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding cost and auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the cost/auth info from the main action.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the model parameter, the expected prompt format, the output structure, or error handling. The cost and API key info is useful but incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'API key' and 'costs 1 credit' but doesn't explain the 'model' parameter's allowed values or the 'prompt' parameter's format/length constraints. The default model 'qwen3.8fast' is in the schema but not explained in the description, leaving the agent to guess what models are available.

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 ('Run LLM inference') and a resource ('RTX 4080'), which clearly identifies the tool's core function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling names (titan_beacon, titan_collect_key, titan_credits, titan_order) suggest different purposes, so the main action is clear enough.

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 context by mentioning cost and API key requirement, which signals when this tool is appropriate (when the user wants LLM inference and has credits/key). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key.

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 burden. It clearly states it creates an order and returns a checkout URL, which is the key behavioral outcome. It does not disclose side effects such as order expiration, whether credits are immediately credited, or any authentication/state changes beyond creating the order.

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 action and resource and includes the key return value. 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?

For a tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: the action and the return value. It is missing only minor context such as failure behavior or what the URL is for, which is reasonably inferable from 'checkout URL'.

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, but the description's phrase 'for TITAN credits' gives direct meaning to the single 'credits' parameter. It doesn't fully document the parameter beyond that, but with one obvious parameter, it is sufficient baseline.

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 ('Create') with a concrete resource ('payment order for TITAN credits') and adds a distinct outcome ('returns a BTCPay checkout URL'). This is precise enough to separate it from sibling tools like titan_credits or titan_generate.

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 usage is implied: it creates a payment order when a user needs to acquire TITAN credits via BTCPay. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or any stated exclusions.

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