First Dollar Desk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the state is 'live', that it is free, and that the response includes a 'bountyManifestUrl'. It also hints at the verification flow. While it doesn't detail rate limits or auth, the tool is a simple read-only call with no parameters, so this level of transparency is adequate.

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, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the bounty context and usage hint. Every sentence carries useful information with no fluff.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the response contents, the bounty condition, and the call ordering relative to verify. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds value by explaining what the response contains (goal state, ledger summary, checkout URLs, bountyManifestUrl), which is beyond the schema. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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's purpose: providing live goal state, ledger summary, and checkout URLs. It also mentions the open bounty condition, which adds specificity. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming 'verify' as a subsequent step, making the tool's role in the workflow unambiguous.

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 instructs 'call before verify', giving a clear usage sequence. It also explains the bounty eligibility condition (third-party human ≥$1 Stripe plus non-owner agent x402 verify), which guides when the bounty applies. This is direct and actionable.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that prices are 'live', explains the 402 response for unpaid agent verify calls, and notes that self-pay is rejected. However, it does not explicitly state whether get_pricing itself is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The nature of a pricing getter makes some of this obvious, but not fully explicit.

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 with no filler. The main purpose ('Live First Dollar Desk prices') is front-loaded, followed by concise, high-value specifics about pricing tiers and the verify endpoint's behavior. Every sentence 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 simple tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential domain knowledge: the key price points, the 402 behavior for agents, and the self-pay restriction. It does not specify the return format, but that is a minor gap for a low-complexity getter. The tool is adequately contextualized for an agent to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents everything. The description adds value by explaining the context behind the prices (Stripe checkout, USDC on Base, self-pay rejection), which gives meaning to the data an agent will receive. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that.

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 opens with 'Live First Dollar Desk prices', clearly stating the tool's purpose: retrieving current pricing information. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'verify' by focusing on pricing specifics, though it does reference verify's cost structure. The verb is implied ('get'), but the resource is explicit.

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 implies usage by providing pricing context for both human and agent flows, and mentions the verify endpoint's 402 behavior. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this tool when you need current prices' or when to prefer it over verify. The guidance is embedded but not directly stated, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 HTTP 402 on unpaid calls, the requirement to settle with a non-owner wallet, and that operator/owner wallets and self-pay are rejected. This is rich behavioral context, though it omits the success response format and any side effects beyond recording a sale.

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 three sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, payment error condition, and payment restrictions. It is appropriately sized and well-structured, with 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it fails to explain the productId parameter, does not state what a successful verification returns, and the payment flow is mentioned but not fully detailed (e.g., how to initiate the settlement). The behavioral constraints are useful, but the missing parameter semantics is a significant gap for 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?

The only parameter, productId, has a schema description 'Use verify.' which is a tautology and provides zero information. The tool description does not explain what productId represents or how it affects verification. With no effective parameter documentation anywhere, the score is minimal.

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 the tool verifies credit for a paid agent, mentioning the payment network (Base) and token (USDC). It implies a distinct resource and action, and is distinguishable from siblings get_goal and get_pricing, which deal with goal and pricing rather than credit verification. The phrase 'Paid agent verify credit' is slightly awkward but the intent is clear.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description implies it is for credit verification but does not state conditions like 'use when you need to verify a payment' or alternatives such as 'instead of get_pricing'. The payment constraints are mentioned, but they are behavioral rather than usage routing.

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