veradata-api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions cost ($0.10 USDC via x402) but lacks details on data freshness, rate limits, error handling, or whether the data is cached. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is two sentences: one for purpose and one for pricing. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be restructured to include more critical details without increasing length.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the query and x_payment parameters, nor does it describe the output format or error conditions. Essential information is missing.

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 50% (query and sector have descriptions in schema; country and x_payment do not). The description adds meaning for sector and country by listing the output fields, but does not explain the optional query parameter or x_payment. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 it provides 'LATAM market context' and specifies the input-output mapping (sector+country to market_size, key_players, regulations, growth signals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vera_entity, vera_rates, and vera_sanctions, though it does not explicitly compare against them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific usage. It only describes the tool's function and pricing.

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 cost ($0.03 USDC via x402) and implies read-only enrichment, but no annotations exist to confirm non-destructive nature. No information on rate limits, authentication, or data freshness.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering purpose, scope, outputs, and cost. No wasted words and critical information 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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains core function and outputs but lacks details on parameter usage (e.g., payment format) and return structure. Adequate for basic use but sufficient with gaps.

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 covers 2 of 4 parameters with descriptions (50% coverage). Description adds country examples from enum and payment method, but does not explain how to use 'x_payment' or the relationship between 'name' and 'identifier'. Adds modest 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 the verb 'enrichment' and resource 'LATAM public registries', lists specific countries (CO, BR, MX) and outputs (NIT/CNPJ, status, representative, industry). Sibling tools (vera_context, vera_rates, vera_sanctions) suggest distinct purposes, making this tool's role well-defined.

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 provides context (countries, outputs, cost) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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 full burden. It discloses that the tool is real-time, paid ($0.02 via x402), and returns specific data types. However, it does not mention rate limits, failure behavior, or whether it modifies any state. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence establishes the purpose, the second adds return data and pricing. It is front-loaded 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return format. It mentions high-level data types (FX rates, benchmark rates, inflation) but lacks specifics like structure, cardinality, or examples. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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%, with clear inline descriptions for each parameter (country enum, optional signals, x_payment). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely repeating the list of countries and return types. Baseline 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 it provides 'Real-time LATAM central bank rates' for specific countries (CO, MX, BR, CL, PE) and lists the returned data types (FX rates, benchmark rates, inflation). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like vera_context and vera_sanctions, which serve different purposes.

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 vs alternatives. While the description mentions pricing ($0.02 via x402), it does not specify the context or prerequisites for usage, nor does it exclude situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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 fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the cost ($0.05 USDC via x402) and return values (risk_score, audit hash), suggesting a read-only screening operation. No contradictions or omissions about destructive/harmful behavior are present.

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 concise with two sentences: one for purpose and scope, one for output and cost. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite lacking output schema and having partial parameter documentation, the description provides key contextual details: databases screened, output metrics, and pricing. It adequately informs about the tool's function and cost, though it could elaborate on the payment parameter.

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 50% (only 'name' and 'country' have descriptions). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain 'x_payment' or the enum 'type'. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 is for global sanctions screening focused on LATAM operations, listing specific databases (OFAC, UN, EU, UK) and outputs (risk_score, audit hash). This differentiates it from siblings like vera_context, vera_entity, and vera_rates, which serve distinct purposes.

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 mentions LATAM operations, implying a regional scope, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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