GateCheck by LarryBuildsAI

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the tool is 'deterministic' and that 'no external action is executed,' reinforcing and elaborating on the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, so no annotation_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, front-loaded with the core function, then a usage instruction. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 a rich output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter already described. The description adds extra meaning by grouping them into 'request, policy, and optional result evidence,' showing how they relate to the receipt. It doesn't provide syntax details, but the schema already covers that, so this is above baseline.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a deterministic, read-only pre-action receipt' from specified inputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing determinism, read-only nature, and that no external action is executed, making it unique among the listed boundary/checking 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use before an agent posts, spends, lists, or writes so the decision can be audited.' It also clarifies the critical safety property: 'no external action is executed.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it stops short of a 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that 'deep/report tiers add unpaid 402 probing' and lists the public discovery surfaces scanned, giving extra behavioral context without contradicting 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 sentences with no filler; the most important action and scope are in the first sentence, and costs/tier behavior are succinctly stated in the following sentences.

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 7 params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, tiers, key parameters, and probe behavior. It omits method/expected details but those are already in the schema; output schema exists so return values don't need description.

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 already describes all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by grouping optional parameters, linking paid_path to deep/report tiers, and giving per-tier costs, which is semantic context 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?

Description opens with 'GateCheck readiness' and states the tool 'check whether an x402/agent-facing tool is ready for agent routing, marketplace listing, and paid-path monitoring', naming concrete discovery surfaces like /llms.txt and /mcp. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scanners/probers by framing it as a readiness gate rather than a direct scan or probe.

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 tells the user to 'Pass target plus optional tier, marketplace_url, expected_resources, and paid_path' and defines three tiers with costs. It implies the deep/report tiers are needed when paid-path probing is desired, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like probe_x402_paid_path or state when not to use it.

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, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the critical trait 'deterministic' and emphasizes the need for sanitized inputs, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations; rather, it reinforces them.

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: the first is a crisp definition, the second is a focused list of forbidden inputs. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, detailed annotations, and a clear description, the tool is well-contextualized. The security constraints are thoroughly covered, and the purpose is unambiguous. A minor gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but the tool's unique role is still evident.

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 parameters are well-documented. The tool description adds a global constraint about not submitting raw sensitive data, which applies across all parameters. However, it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 function: 'Generate a deterministic trust receipt from sanitized request/policy/result/payment summaries.' It uses a specific verb ('generate'), names the resource ('trust receipt'), and specifies the inputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boundary_guard_check or probe_x402_paid_path, which serve different purposes.

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 requiring 'sanitized' inputs and explicitly listing what must not be submitted (auth headers, cookies, API keys, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings or provide exclusions or alternative tool references. The 'Do not submit...' list is a strict input constraint but not a full usage guideline.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds that outputs are 'marketplace-safe' and that service/premium tiers include 'readiness evidence,' which is meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations. 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 front-load the primary action and output list, then input guidance, then tier pricing. Every clause carries information with no filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 11-parameter schema with full descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, inputs, and tier differentiation. It doesn't detail every parameter, but that is appropriately delegated to the schema; the only minor gap is an explicit link to sibling validation tools.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting key parameters (target, product_name, audience, primary_use_case, marketplace_url, paid_path) and linking them to tier behavior, helping the agent understand how parameters are used together.

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 states a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'marketplace-safe launch assets' with an enumerated list of outputs (listing copy, buyer FAQ, checklist, approval packet, claim boundaries). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that check, scan, or probe.

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?

Provides clear usage context: pass target plus optional parameters, and select a tier. It implies when to use (for sellers creating launch packs) and mentions tier-specific behavior, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing a safe, side-effect-free profile. The description adds useful context by stating it probes 'without signing or paying' and that it produces a 'deterministic health receipt,' which aligns with and enriches the annotation hints. No contradictions exist.

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, front-loaded with the main verb and target, and every clause adds relevant information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 rich schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's function, safe read-only nature, and the purpose of the key optional parameter. It does not detail error handling or output structure, but an output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear, so this is not a critical gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'expected' parameter is used 'to verify payment metadata' and mapping its sub-fields (network/asset/price) to that purpose. This goes slightly beyond the schema, though mode and method still rely on their 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 uses the specific verb 'Probe' and clearly identifies the target resource ('public x402 paid endpoint') and the key outcomes ('parse the HTTP 402 challenge' and 'receive a deterministic health receipt'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_x402_resource by emphasizing the unpaid, no-signature probing approach.

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 states the primary use case: probing a paid endpoint without signing or paying, which clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when not to use it, so there is no direct exclusions or alternative 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, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the explicit 'read-only' and 'no private endpoints are called' guarantees, reinforcing the safety profile, and mentions the output (readiness score, issues, fixes) which is useful behavior beyond annotations. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and safety guarantee, then parameter usage. Every word earns its place; 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers actions, inputs, outputs, and safety. It doesn't need to explain return values since output schema handles that.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description only restates that url is passed and marketplace_url and expected_resources are optional, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies, with no compensatory info.

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 a read-only scan of a public API/provider URL for x402, OpenAPI, pricing, and agent-discovery metadata, distinguishing it from sibling tools by naming the resource type and the specific metadata categories. The verb 'scan' and the output (readiness score, issues, fixes) make 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use it: for scanning a public API/provider URL, with optional marketplace and expected resources. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like probe_x402_paid_path or check_agent_tool_readiness, and does not mention exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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