Agentropolis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by stating that no Bazaar data is cached or republished, which tells the agent this tool yields a pointer rather than data. It does not disclose the form of the returned link or any invocation caveats.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Both sentences are relevant, though the description is arguably over-terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (a URL string? a structured object?) and how q is applied to it. It says only that a link is returned, and the sole parameter is unexplained, leaving an agent guessing at the call contract.

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?

There is one parameter, q, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining it. It never mentions q or how the query shapes the generated link, leaving the parameter undocumented in both places.

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 verb and resource: it 'Returns a link to search Coinbase's Bazaar directly.' That is clear and distinct from data-retrieval siblings like search_kits or market_snapshot. It does not explicitly contrast itself against those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The note that Agentropolis does not cache or republish Bazaar data implies you must go to Bazaar for that content, but that is an inference rather than stated usage 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 only give generic hints (openWorld, not read-only, not idempotent). The description adds the traits that actually matter here: it is a non-custodial pass-through that never holds keys or funds, never settles, charges no fees, and forwards the payment unchanged. It also explains the 402 handshake, which an agent could not infer from the 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the forward-and-return behavior, then the 402 branch, then the trust and eligibility guarantees. The most decision-relevant facts (pass-through, payment handling) are front-loaded before the non-custodial assurances.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well, explaining that the seller's response is passed through unchanged and that a 402 yields the seller's payment requirements verbatim. It also covers the auth model (your own wallet) and supported listings. Minor gaps remain around non-402 errors, timeouts, and the largely undocumented query/method/content_type parameters.

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 63%, so roughly a third of the eight parameters (query, method, content_type, endpoint) are documented only partially or not at all. The description does contextualize x_payment and payment_signature by tying them to the x402 v1/v2 payment retry, which adds value beyond the schema. However, the remaining parameters get no semantic help from the description, so this sits at the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 precise verb and resource: it forwards a request to the seller's x402 endpoint and returns the seller's response. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like search_kits or get_kit, which resolve listing metadata rather than perform the call. The scope constraint (only links.call / buy=relay_x402 listings) further sharpens what this tool does.

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?

It gives an explicit procedural when-to-use: call, and if the seller answers 402, sign with your own wallet and call again with x_payment or payment_signature. It also states the eligibility condition (only relay_x402 listings). It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for unsupported listings or non-payment flows, so it is clear context without explicit 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is 'full' detail rather than the summarized form returned by search_kits, which is modest value; nothing about missing-id behavior or result size is disclosed.

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?

A single short sentence with the retrieval scope front-loaded. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it is terse enough that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 one-parameter getter with safety annotations and no output schema, the core need (what it returns and where the id comes from) is covered. What is missing is differentiation from the closely named sibling get_kit_manifest and any note on behavior when the id is invalid.

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 0%, so the schema documents only 'string' with no meaning for id. The description partially compensates by identifying the id as coming from search_kits, but it does not state the expected format (UUID, slug, numeric) or whether it is case-sensitive, leaving a real ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb (get), resource (listing/kit), and retrieval mode (full detail by id), which is far more informative than the title 'Get a listing'. It also names search_kits as the id source, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_kit_manifest, which an agent could easily confuse with 'full detail'.

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 parenthetical '(from search_kits)' implies the prerequisite workflow: search first, then fetch full detail with this tool. However, it states no condition for choosing this over get_kit_manifest or call_kit, and no when-not-to-use 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=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully enumerates what the payload contains, but adds nothing about auth requirements, caching, or whether the manifest can be stale.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource type and packs the payload contents into one clear parenthetical. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry return-value burden; it partially does by enumerating the manifest sections, but omits the id format and any usage context. Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single 'id' parameter. 'for a listing' only loosely implies what the id identifies and gives no format, source, or lookup semantics.

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?

States a specific resource ('kit manifest for a listing') and enumerates its contents (invoke endpoints, pricing hints, discovery files, trust), which distinguishes it from get_kit. It never explicitly says why the manifest differs from the kit itself, so an agent still has to infer the sibling boundary.

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 versus get_kit, search_kits, or call_kit. The agent is left to guess that a 'manifest' is the metadata/discovery document rather than the kit content.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only contribution is that results include listing counts, a small but genuine return-shape hint; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or scope.

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?

A four-word fragment with zero waste and the key information (categories, plus counts) front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a trivial zero-arg read, though it edges toward under-specification rather than crisp conciseness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, closed-world tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it gives no sense of what a 'listing count' means, what categories exist, or how this differs from other list-style siblings, so it stops at the minimum viable bar.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies for a no-param 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 phrase "Categories with listing counts" conveys the resource and one attribute it returns, but it is a noun fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer the operation (a listing) from the tool name. It does not distinguish this from siblings like list_sources or search_kits beyond the word 'categories'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as auth requirements, pagination, or performance characteristics; it only restates the returned content.

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 single-sentence fragment is very concise and front-loaded with the core information. It could be slightly clearer if written as a complete clause, but it wastes no 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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential return semantics: ingested/excluded directories and reasons. Usage guidance is missing, but that is captured separately; the definition is otherwise sufficiently complete for invoking the 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline for zero params is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation, and it appropriately adds no parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource and the information returned: directories that were ingested or excluded and the reason (terms/robots). Combined with the name list_sources and title, the tool's purpose is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_categories.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful provenance ('CC BY 4.0', 'wash-filtered') but omits freshness, time window, aggregation logic, or response format.

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 compact statement with no filler, and the core object is front-loaded. It is slightly too terse, leaving key terms unexplained.

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 no output schema, the description should carry return-value or content semantics, but it does not say what a market snapshot contains, what categories look like, or what time range is covered. This leaves an agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty 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 identifies a resource (x402 paid-usage by category) and data provenance, but 'wash-filtered' and 'x402' are undefined jargon, and there is no clear verb or sibling differentiation against tools like list_categories.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. The title mentions 'free preview,' but that context is not carried in the description itself.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content-level context by naming the feature areas the roadmap covers, but says nothing about format, freshness, or how 'live vs. stubbed' is represented.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero padding, and the core claim ('what is live vs. stubbed') is front-loaded before the illustrative feature list. It loses a point only for being a fragment rather than a complete, actionable statement.

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 zero-parameter, read-only query with no output schema, the description arguably carries the return-content burden, and it does list the covered feature areas. It is largely sufficient, though it could state that it returns a status list rather than leaving the agent to infer the shape.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. The description has no parameters to disambiguate, and the schema is empty, so nothing further is required.

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 conveys the content domain — a status report of what is live vs. stubbed — and enumerates the covered features. However, it is written as a noun fragment with no verb or resource statement (e.g., 'Get the Hub roadmap'), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as market_snapshot or get_kit_manifest. The purpose is inferable but not crisply stated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. The parenthetical feature list implies scope but does not tell the agent under what circumstances to call this versus market_snapshot or list_categories.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it never triggers payment, trust scores derive only from verified non-wash payments, and affiliate first-party kits arrive in a separate labeled block. That disclosure of result provenance goes beyond structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences with the scope front-loaded and zero filler; every clause (scope, safety, trust provenance, affiliate labeling) carries distinct information.

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 an 8-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what it searches and how trust/affiliate results are handled, but says nothing about filter semantics, ordering, result count, or pagination. Adequate but with clear gaps given the parameter richness.

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 only 13% — only 'q' is documented, leaving kind, rail, category, min_trust, paid_only, max_price_usd and limit unexplained in both schema and description. Passing mentions of 'trust scores' and paid APIs gesture at min_trust/paid_only but give no semantics, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

Specific verb ('Search') plus a concrete resource, and it enumerates exactly what the index contains (MCP servers, x402/MPP paid HTTP APIs, A2A agents, kits). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_kit or list_categories, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied (this is the entry-point discovery tool) and 'Read-only; never pays' frames the context, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance and no prerequisites stated. The agent must infer that get_kit/get_kit_manifest are the follow-ups.

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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the substance of what the tool conveys (methodology plus limits), which is useful, but says nothing about result format or whether the content is static.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the subject is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a tool whose whole value is explanatory content, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it only sketches the topic (method and limits) without saying what form the answer takes. Adequate but with an obvious gap for a documentation-returning 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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% as well.

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 sentence names the subject (hub trust scores) and the facets covered (computation method and limits), so an agent can infer this returns explanatory documentation. However, it states no verb and doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like roadmap or get_kit_manifest, which are also static informational lookups.

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 indication of when to call this versus the other informational siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must guess that this is a documentation-style lookup.

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