costheta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the paid aspect, commit-and-reveal, and signed certificate, but does not explain how the decision is computed, what the certificate attests to, or any side effects. The behavior remains largely opaque for a financial 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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the paid nature and key requirements. It is concise and well-structured, though the brevity sacrifices essential details for clarity.

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 paid tool with no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits the decision outcome, how the signed certificate is used, the role of n_options, and any return format, leaving critical gaps for an agent to 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 67%, covering commitment and idempotency_key. The description only re-emphasizes idempotency_key and does not add meaning for n_options, which is left undocumented in both schema and description. It fails to compensate for the 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?

The description identifies a specific action—commit-and-reveal decision—and includes context (paid, Base mainnet, signed certificate). It is clear about the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like costheta_random or costheta_witness beyond the word 'decide.'

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It only states that payment and idempotency_key are required, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline for selection among alternatives.

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. It discloses that the result is a shared beacon (all callers see the same latest signed pulse until the next muon), which is key behavioral context. It stops short of explaining edge cases like waiting behavior or what happens before the first pulse.

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?

Concise three-sentence description with front-loaded purpose, then behavioral detail, then alternative. Every sentence adds value with no 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 single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, shared behavior, and alternative tool usage. The return value range is inferable from the schema. Minor omission: no explicit mention of the return type or potential errors, but not critical for this simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics, but the 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 it returns a free public random outcome anchored to a cosmic-ray coincidence pulse, with a specific resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling costheta_decide for private/paid uses.

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 names costheta_decide as the alternative for private commitments and retry-safe paid certificates. The shared-beacon semantics also make it clear this is for public randomness.

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 of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the paid nature and the requirement for a payment signature, which is crucial. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, side effects, or return semantics, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the key context (paid, Base mainnet) before stating the action. It is concise with no wasted words, and every piece of information (paid, requires keys) is essential.

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 tool has a paid nature and two required parameters with no output schema, so the description should explain return values or what 'witness' produces. It covers the payment requirement but omits expected outcomes, potential errors, or the significance of the certificate, making it only moderately 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions idempotency_key but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions. It doesn't elaborate on how the parameters interact or provide format details beyond what is already stated.

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 action: 'witness a caller commitment against a signed pulse certificate.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and the paid x402 Base mainnet context. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the action is distinct enough to infer its purpose.

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 context that this is a paid tool requiring PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and idempotency_key, which implies when it should be used. However, it doesn't explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over the sibling tools (costheta_decide, costheta_random) or provide exclusions for alternative usage.

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