NOMOS Cross-Border Broker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is cached daily and incurs no API cost, implying safe read-only usage. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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: the first covers purpose and geographic scope, the second covers output and caching. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given the output schema exists and parameters are fully described, the description is sufficient for basic usage. It lacks explanation of domain-specific terms like 'MCP-ready' and 'compliance signals', but the core functionality is clear.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it broadly mentions regions and signal types but does not elaborate on syntax or options.

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 daily market intelligence from 6 specified regions and lists the types of returns (MCP-ready companies, funded entities, compliance signals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nomos_crossborder_preflight and nomos_signed_receipt_verify.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or any comparison to sibling tools.

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?

The description discloses the behavior: it checks jurisdiction pair and data category, returns a verdict with blocked_fields, sccs_required, and evidence_hash. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It is transparent about the check being non-destructive (preflight), but does not mention authentication needs or rate limits.

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-loaded with the purpose, and then details parameters and output. Every sentence is informative, with no wasted words. It is concise yet complete for an overview.

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 (context signals confirm), the description adequately explains the return values: verdict types, blocked_fields, sccs_required, evidence_hash. It covers the essential behavioral aspects and input parameters. However, it could mention that the tool is read-only or specify that it does not modify state.

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 each parameter having a description and enum values in the schema. The description adds context by explaining the jurisdiction pair concept and listing regime codes, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The included examples further clarify input structure.

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: 'Cross-border regulatory preflight for agent data flows.' It specifies that it checks jurisdiction pair and data category, and lists the output verdict. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nomos_asia_market_scan, which focuses on Asian markets, and nomos_mcp_tool_discovery, which is about discovering MCP capabilities.

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 when a regulatory preflight check for cross-border data flows is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It lacks guidance on which sibling tool to choose for different scenarios.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the operation (search, returns tool info) but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or limits. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Exactly two sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose, no wasted words. Highly concise.

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 output schema existence and low complexity (2 params, no nesting), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. Missing details on search behavior (e.g., pagination) but acceptable for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The tool description adds context about searching by jurisdiction, which is not a parameter (minor inconsistency), but overall helps understanding.

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 'Discover MCP-compatible tools' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings (specific functions like asia_market_scan, crossborder_preflight) by being a broad search/discovery tool.

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 context through 'Search by keyword, category or jurisdiction.' While not explicit about when not to use or alternatives, sibling names clearly suggest different purposes, making usage fairly 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns verification status, operation details, timestamp, and chain position, giving some idea of output. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, if there are side effects, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core action and expected output. It is not verbose, but could include a bit more structure (e.g., bullet points for return values) while remaining 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 that the tool has only one parameter, an output schema exists, and the description lists key return fields (verification status, operation details, timestamp, chain position), the description is fairly complete. However, lacking usage guidelines limits completeness.

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% and the parameter 'receipt_hash' already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond restating that verification is done by hash, 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 clearly states the tool verifies a NOMOS signed evidence receipt by hash, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., nomos_asia_market_scan) that focus on market scanning or quoting rather than verification.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention any context about prior operations needed or when verification is 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a signed quote with specific fields (payTo address, network, amount), but does not mention any side effects, permissions, idempotency, or state changes. For a read-only quote tool, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then listing critical details. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given that the tool has only two parameters with full schema descriptions and an output schema is present, the description provides sufficient information to use the tool correctly. It lacks explicit usage guidelines but covers purpose, pricing, and return format.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the three pricing tiers with costs and what the response contains, which goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 gets a signed x402 payment quote for NOMOS services, specifies pricing tiers, and details the returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like asia_market_scan and crossborder_preflight which are different service endpoints.

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 the tool is used to obtain a payment quote before using other services, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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