agentic-payments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds context that it is free, read-only, and has no side effects like requiring account or credentials, reinforcing and expanding on annotations. No contradictions.

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 that concisely convey purpose and constraints with no superfluous words. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param), existence of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is fully complete, covering what it fetches, that it's read-only, and its relation to search.

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?

Input schema has one parameter with 100% coverage and clear description including examples. The description does not add semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb 'fetch' and identifies the resource as 'one document or instrument guide returned by search', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search (which returns results) and list_instruments (which lists).

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 after search by stating 'returned by search', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the sibling list makes the context clear.

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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context by stating it does not fetch prices, charge wallet, or submit payment, and it returns service notes and pricing docs, going beyond 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It is concise but could be split for readability; still 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 builds a URL, the description covers return values adequately. Output schema exists but is not needed. It does not explain x402 protocol or preconditions, but is fairly complete for its purpose.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a usage hint for symbol ('Use search_pairs first if unsure'), providing marginal extra value 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 it builds a specific HTTP URL for market data, distinguishing it from siblings like fetch which fetches prices. It specifies the exact output: method, URL, service notes, pricing docs, and next steps.

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 explains what the tool does not do (fetch prices, charge wallet), providing context. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this vs alternatives like fetch or search_pairs, though the schema hints at using search_pairs first.

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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is free, read-only, and does not initiate payment. It also specifies the exact data returned (prices, tiers, networks). No contradictions with 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 consists of two short sentences, each adding essential information. The first sentence lists the data contents, and the second provides usage context. No wasted words or 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?

The description fully captures the tool's functionality and purpose. Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (which the description does not need to detail), the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool provides and that it is safe to use.

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 zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details. The schema coverage is 100% trivially, and the description does not repeat anything from the schema. Baseline 4 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 the tool's purpose: inspecting per-call prices, bulk credit tiers, and supported settlement networks. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting that it is for planning only and does not initiate payment, which differentiates it from any payment-related tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—for read-only planning and obtaining pricing metadata. It explicitly states that it does not initiate payment, implying it should be used before any payment operations. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools or provide direct alternatives, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable context: free, catalog metadata, and explicit exclusions of live prices, account creation, and payment initiation.

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 redundant information. Core purpose stated first followed by clarifying exclusions. 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 simple single-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations and output schema present, description covers scope and boundaries effectively. No missing aspects.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter description explaining enum values. Tool description adds no further detail; baseline score 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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'supported instruments' for a Blocksize service. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it is free, read-only catalog metadata and clarifying it does not fetch live prices, create accounts, or start payments.

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?

Implies usage when needing to know available instruments per service. Negative statements help avoid misuse (e.g., if live prices needed). Does not explicitly name alternatives but context with siblings provides 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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds value by specifying 'free read-only search', 'does not return live prices', and confirms it returns IDs. No contradiction.

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. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by key constraints and return type. 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 single parameter and existing output schema, description captures core purpose, usage bounds, and return type. Sufficient for a search 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% with a detailed description for 'query'. The description adds only 'by keyword', which is redundant; baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches 'Blocksize documentation and catalog metadata by keyword', with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns document/instrument IDs for fetch, not live prices.

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 states it is a read-only search and does not return live prices, implying use for documentation/catalog metadata. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct alternatives, though context hints at fetch for full documents.

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. Description adds valuable context: the tool is free, never returns live prices, never starts payment, and returns up to 50 matches. No contradiction with 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?

Description is concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, clearly explaining what the tool does and its key characteristics.

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 that an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on usage context and behavioral traits. It covers the tool's role as a free, read-only search, its limits (50 matches), and what it does not do. This is sufficient for a tool with rich annotations and schema.

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 (query and asset_class) are fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Discover supported symbols before using the paid HTTP API.' It specifies the action (discover), resource (symbols), and context (before paid API). It also mentions output details (up to 50 catalog matches) and distinguishes from paid alternatives by highlighting it is free and read-only.

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 indicates usage context (preliminary step before paid API) and what the tool does not do (no live prices or payment). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like list_instruments or search, leaving some room for improvement.

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