Times Rare

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates the tool returns instructions and does not perform the claim (non-destructive). It does not explicitly state read-only, but the behavior is unambiguous. Providing a readOnlyHint annotation would be ideal, but the description is sufficient.

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?

Description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence immediately states the primary function, and the second adds crucial context about actual claim and usage. Well-structured and 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?

Without an output schema, the description should elaborate on the return format of the instructions (e.g., text, steps, structured data). It only says 'step-by-step instructions' and implies it's human-readable, but an agent might need to know if it's plain text or JSON. Lacks detail on the exact output structure.

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 100% description coverage with clear param descriptions (e.g., 'Top-left tile x'). The tool description does not add additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 returns step-by-step instructions for claiming a block, not performing the claim itself. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'claim_quote_x402' which likely performs the actual claim. However, the tool name 'claim_block' might misleadingly suggest it performs the claim, slightly reducing clarity.

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 instructs MCP clients to display the instructions to the human/agent operator, implying this tool is for obtaining guidance rather than executing the claim. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it, but the context around out-of-band completion provides clear usage cues.

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. It discloses the return structure (USDC amount, payTo address, 4-step instructions) and indicates a demo mode via 'instructions.mode'. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only (likely, as it's a quote), any side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is partially adequate but lacks safety and mutation details.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the main purpose, and the second lists key return fields and the demo mode indicator. Every word is essential; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, making it ideal for an AI agent.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return fields but omits important context: the validity period of the quote, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., need to have a block selected), or connection to other tools like 'claim_block'. The mention of 'demo mode' is left unexplained. For a quote tool, these gaps reduce completeness. However, it provides a solid foundation.

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 descriptions for all four parameters (x, y, w, h), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how these parameters define a 'specific block' or their relationship. Since the description adds no new param info and the schema already provides basic descriptions, a score 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's purpose: 'Get an x402-compliant payment quote for claiming a specific block.' It specifies the action (get a quote), the compliance standard (x402), and the resource (a block). The mention of return fields (USDC amount, payTo address, 4-step instructions) further clarifies what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'claim_block' which presumably executes the claim, and 'price_check' which is more general.

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 is for obtaining a quote before claiming a block, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'claim_block', 'get_block', or 'price_check'. No guidance is given on prerequisites, order of operations, or when not to use it. The mention of 'demo mode' hints at a special case but lacks clarity. Some implied usage exists from the context, but explicit guidance is missing.

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?

Without annotations, the description should disclose read-only behavior; it does not state that the tool is safe and idempotent. It mentions return data (coordinates, dimensions, prices) but omits whether results are sorted or paginated beyond the limit parameter.

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 conveys the core function and return values. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should detail the return structure more. It mentions coordinates, dimensions, and prices but not data types or nesting. Also, no side effects or prerequisites are stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already explained. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the tool's purpose. For example, it does not clarify how 'h' and 'w' filter results, though the schema handles 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists empty rectangles on the Times Rare canvas, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'claim_block' (for claiming) and 'get_block' (for individual block details) by focusing on listing available blocks.

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 or avoid this tool, nor mention of alternatives. The purpose is inferred, but the description lacks context like 'Use this to find blocks before claiming' or 'Do not use if you already know block coordinates'.

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, description carries full burden. It lists returned fields but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid token), rate limits, or auth requirements. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 the primary action. No unnecessary words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, description explains purpose and return fields. Lacks error handling and full response structure, but adequate given low 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 coverage is 100% (one parameter fully described). Description adds context by explaining share_token as 'the permanent URL slug', which adds slight value 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?

Description clearly states 'Read a specific block by its share_token', identifying the verb (read) and resource (block). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'claim_block' (write) and 'find_empty_blocks' (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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies reading a single block but does not mention exclusions or scenarios where other tools are better suited.

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?

Description states it returns counts but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that (e.g., read-only assumption, no side effects). No annotations exist, so burden is moderate.

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?

Single sentence listing return fields, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Lists all major return dimensions. Lacks details like pagination or date range, but adequate for this simple read tool.

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; baseline 4. Description adds meaning about output, compensating for lack of output 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?

Description clearly states 'Read the aggregate Times Rare demand-survey results' with specific verb and resource. It lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling submit_demand_survey.

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 this is for reading (not submitting) results, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Sibling names provide 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?

The description discloses the return fields and scope (all advertised services), and it is clear this is a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, but the description adequately conveys behavior for a simple list 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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and resource, second lists return details. No redundancy or fluff.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns, though it lacks mention of potential edge cases (e.g., empty directory) or authentication needs.

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 (schema coverage 100%). The description does not need to explain parameters; it focuses on output, which is appropriate. Baseline 3 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?

The description explicitly states the tool lists all currently advertised services on the Times Rare canvas, with specific return fields. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_block' and 'price_check'.

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 retrieving the full service directory, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns price_cents, tile_count, and zones spanned, and explains the pricing tiers (Center/Corner/Edge). However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Basic transparency but missing non-obvious behavioral aspects.

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 plus a pricing line, all essential. The first sentence states purpose and return values, the second specifies pricing model. No filler, every sentence adds value. Well front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides basic return fields and pricing rules but lacks explanation of how zones are derived from coordinates and what the exact output format is. This may leave an agent uncertain about parsing results or interpreting zone context for different inputs.

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 100% coverage with clear descriptions (x,y in 0-99, w,h in 1-20). The description adds that parameters define a 'block' and mentions pricing zones, but does not explain how zones are determined from coordinates. Baseline 3 since schema already documents parameters well; description adds minimal extra 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource ('exact USD price (cents) to claim a specific block'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'claim_block' (action) and 'get_block' (info) by focusing on pricing before claiming.

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 use before claiming a block and provides pricing tier context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives (e.g., claim_quote_x402 might be for quotes). Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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 full burden. It discloses rate limiting and anonymity, plus the research purpose. It does not detail success/error responses or persistence, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences long, front-loading the primary action and context, then adding constraints. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero 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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, rate limits, anonymity. It lacks a description of the response (e.g., confirmation of submission), but overall is adequate for agent decision-making.

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 all parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full 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 clearly states the action ('Submit an anonymous response'), the specific survey ('Times Rare demand survey'), and the business purpose ('research agent-economy ad pricing + feature priorities'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_survey_results.

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 includes rate limits ('3 responses per IP per hour') and identity policy ('No identity stored'), providing clear constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly with sibling tools, though the context is implicit.

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