AgentSLA

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are ranked by real-time uptime score and latency on Base Mainnet, but it does not mention pagination, authentication/rate limits, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted qualifiers. It states the action, resource, ranking basis, and network scope compactly.

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 one-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and ranking criteria. However, it leaves out return-shape or pagination context that would help an agent 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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional category parameter and already lists the allowed category values. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description uses a clear verb+resource: "List SLA-monitored M2M APIs" and specifies scope "on Base Mainnet" plus ranking criteria. It is distinguishable from siblings like verify_endpoint_sla, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 by the listing purpose and the optional category filter, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or when to choose get_usdc_escrow_contract or verify_endpoint_sla instead.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the network and that the result is 'verified' contract details and ABI, but does not state read-only behavior, idempotency, caching, authentication needs, or what format the ABI is returned in.

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 with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the resource and return content.

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 getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned (details and ABI) and where it comes from (Base Mainnet Circle USDC escrow). It could add minor behavioral context, but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 there is nothing to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not misrepresent any input.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource: 'verified Base Mainnet Circle USDC escrow smart contract details and ABI.' It clearly identifies both the network and asset, making the tool's purpose 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?

Usage is implied by the name and description—retrieve escrow contract details/ABI—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no alternative is needed, but the description still lacks direct usage framing.

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 but leaves critical behavior unexplained: whether the onchain 'Base Mainnet oracle verification' writes a transaction, requires a wallet/credentials, costs gas, or has side effects on the probed endpoint. It also omits rate limits, timeouts beyond the default, and whether probing is safe/read-only.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no waste. The trailing oracle-verification clause is efficient in length but introduces unexplained jargon rather than earning its place with detail.

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 and no annotations, so the description should explain what an SLA-compliance result and an 'oracle verification' return look like, plus any auth/side-effect requirements. Neither is covered, leaving an agent unable to predict the tool's outcome or cost.

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 both endpointUrl and maxLatencyMs are already documented, and the description's mention of 'latency (ms)' and the 2000ms default adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies when the 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?

States specific verbs (probe, measure) and resources (live API endpoint, latency, SLA compliance), which clearly separates it from discover_monitored_apis and get_usdc_escrow_contract. The trailing clause about 'Base Mainnet oracle verification' is opaque but does not obscure the core 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only signal is the implied 'probe a live endpoint' framing, which an agent must infer.

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