AgentMetal

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

Discloses that the server holds no funds and cannot provision, and returns only payment info. With no annotations, this fully describes behavior.

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 key information (step, action, payment methods), and uses bold for emphasis. 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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, what is returned (provision field with three ways), and how to proceed. Complete and actionable.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context about renting and the provision field but doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the 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?

Clearly states it gets payment requirements for renting a plan for N days, specifying payment methods (USDC via x402 on Base + card) and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_server, list_plans, list_servers) by focusing on payment rather than provisioning.

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?

Explicitly positions as 'Step 2' and instructs the agent not to expect provisioning from this tool, but to use the returned 'provision' field elsewhere. Provides clear context for when to use 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?

Discloses both included data (status, plan, expiry, bandwidth) and excluded data (network details), providing full transparency for a read-only operation without annotations.

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 purpose, no unnecessary 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 simple fetch tool with no output schema or annotations, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and what is not.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches server status, plan, expiry, and bandwidth usage, and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_servers by focusing on a single server's details.

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 about what the tool returns and notes a limitation (network details not returned), but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_payment_options or list_servers.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state it's non-destructive, require authentication, or have rate limits. The side effects are unclear.

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. The first sentence is focused and informative, the second sentence provides workflow steps. It is relatively concise, though the second sentence is slightly long. 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the purpose and workflow but lacks details on response format, pagination, or ordering. It is adequate for a simple list operation but could be more complete.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4 per instructions. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by specifying the attributes listed (vCPU/RAM/disk, pricing, egress), making the output clearer.

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 AgentMetal VPS plans with specific attributes (vCPU/RAM/disk, USD/day + USD/mo, included egress). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_payment_options and list_servers by framing it as step 1 of renting a server.

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 provides usage context: it's step 1, and after picking a plan, the agent should call get_payment_options, then provision via API or local MCP. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative workflow 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states 'provisioned by a payer wallet address' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. Lacks deeper transparency for a moderate score.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its core purpose. However, missing output or result behavior details (e.g., returns array, empty if none) but not critical.

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 a single parameter described as 'Payer wallet address (0x…)'. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, essentially restating it. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states specific verb 'List' and resource 'servers' with scope 'by a payer wallet address'. Easily distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_server' (single server) and 'list_plans' (different resource).

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?

Description clearly implies usage context (listing servers for a wallet) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool names. However, given the sibling names, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to differentiate.

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