Vextorium

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the single most important non-obvious trait: this is a paid call billed in USDC via x402, priced by service_details, and not charged when input is invalid or the upstream source fails. It omits how payment/auth is actually settled, rate limits, and failure/error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with no waste: the action and result come first, followed by the billing model and its exceptions. Every clause earns its 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?

The billing semantics are covered, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the payment flow (how x402 is invoked), error/failure response shape, and any auth requirements unexplained for a tool that runs arbitrary upstream services with an opaque nested params object.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the pointer to service_details for the params object. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run any Vextorium service') and the return type ('get the JSON result'), which cleanly separates it from the read-only siblings search_services and service_details. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: the agent is expected to discover a service via search_services and look up pricing via service_details before calling. The reference to service_details gives one concrete routing hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or prerequisite ordering.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is free, the catalog size (507), and the return fields (ids, descriptions, prices), but says nothing about ranking, result limits, or what happens when no keywords match.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action and scope are front-loaded before the examples and return-value note. Nothing an agent must read is buried.

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, the description correctly compensates by naming the return fields. It is nearly complete for a 2-param discovery tool; only the limit/pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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 50%: the 'query' param gets helpful examples in the description that go beyond the schema's bare 'Keywords', but the 'limit' parameter (1-30) is never mentioned in either the schema description or the description. Marginal added value.

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 (Search) and resource (Vextorium catalog of paid data services), plus concrete keyword examples that make the intent unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from call_service or service_details, but the search-vs-invoke-vs-details split is inferable.

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 only implied: a discovery tool named 'search' that is 'Free' naturally precedes call_service, but the description never says when to use this versus service_details or call_service, nor any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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 it does disclose useful traits: this is a read-only inspection call and it is 'Free', which signals no cost side effects in contrast to a paid call_service. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the cost/read-only disclosure is genuine value beyond structured data.

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 with zero waste, front-loading what the tool is ('Details of one Vextorium service') before the return contents and the cost note. Every clause earns its 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete because it enumerates the returned fields (behavior, price, input schema, example). The only gap is workflow guidance relative to call_service, which is minor given the 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% and the single 'service' parameter is already documented in the schema (id from search_services, example 'token-safety'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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 names a specific resource ('one Vextorium service') and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: what it does, price in USDC, input JSON schema, and an example. This contrasts implicitly with the plural search_services, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: the tool takes a service id (documented in the schema as coming from search_services), so the natural workflow is search-then-inspect. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of call_service as the alternative for actually invoking a service, and no exclusions.

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