Vextorium

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: paid per call in USDC via x402, price shown by service_details, and no charge for invalid input or failed upstream sources.

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 compact sentences with no wasted text. The core action is front-loaded, and the billing caveat follows 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 two-parameter execution tool with no output schema, the description covers the key call behavior, return type, and billing/failure semantics. It omits deeper output-shape detail, but that is largely inherent because the returned JSON depends on the selected service.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or shape details beyond saying the service runs 'with its parameters'; it only points to service_details for pricing.

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 and resource: run a Vextorium service with parameters and get the JSON result. It is clearly an execution tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_services or service_details beyond referencing service_details for pricing.

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: call this after finding a service and checking details, since price is shown by service_details. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus search_services or service_details, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the payment model.

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?

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It does so usefully: no cost ('Free'), catalog size (242), and the shape of results (service ids, descriptions, prices). It stops short of describing ranking or result ordering.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scout-friendly examples; nothing is redundant or padding.

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-output-schema search tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description supplies purpose, cost, scale, and return contents. Minor gaps remain around the 'limit' parameter and result ordering, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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% (query documented as 'Keywords', limit undocumented). The description partially compensates by giving keyword examples that clarify what 'query' accepts, but it says nothing about 'limit', even though the schema caps it at 30. Adequate but incomplete against the coverage gap.

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 242 paid data services') and pins the search mechanism ('by keywords') with concrete examples. It clearly reads as a discovery tool distinct from a 'call_service' or 'service_details' sibling, though it never names those alternatives 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?

The phrase 'Free' implies this is the zero-cost discovery step before the paid call_service sibling, and the keyword examples show expected usage. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus service_details, nor any exclusion or prerequisite 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?

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what the response contains and noting that the call is free, though it does not mention failure behavior or rate limits.

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 wasted wording. It gives the resource, the returned fields, and the cost in one compact line.

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-only lookup with one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. Although no output schema exists, the description enumerates the key return values so an agent knows what 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?

There is only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100%; the schema fully documents that it is a service id from search_services with an example. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 states a specific resource and scope: details of one Vextorium service. It enumerates the returned content (what it does, USDC price, JSON input schema, example), making it clearly distinct from search_services and call_service.

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 by 'Details of one Vextorium service,' but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of search_services or call_service. The 'Free' note adds context but does not provide routing guidance.

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