laen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It provides useful details: the operation is a search/read ('Search', 'Returns'), it is 'FREE', and it returns live data with specific resolution_state semantics (KNOWN_RESOLUTION = instant). However, it does not disclose whether any side effects occur, rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 establishes the action and resource, the second enumerates return fields. It is appropriately sized, front-loaded with 'FREE' and the search action, and every phrase earns its place. No filler 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?

Given the moderate complexity (5 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a solid job by listing key return fields (gap_type, failing_assertion, resolution_contract, resolution_state, latency). It conveys the tool's role in a broader workflow, though it could further clarify how results connect to siblings like laen_resolve. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all five optional parameters, including examples like 'api.example.com'. The tool description adds general context about 'matching a failure signature' but does not enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 opens with a specific action ('Search LAEN's live blocker feed') and clearly identifies the resource and purpose (matching execution blockers to a failure signature). It lists concrete return fields, making the tool's role unmistakable even without comparing to siblings. 'FREE' and 'live blocker feed' add operational context without obscuring the core function.

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 context (searching for blockers before resolution) and mentions 'matching a failure signature' as the primary filter, which gives some situational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over laen_quote or laen_resolve, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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 provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns exact payment requirements, and warns against sharing keys. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on failure, or any side effects. It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 four short sentences, each adding value: 'FREE' is a cost indicator, 'Get the price...' states the purpose, 'Use the returned...' explains how to use the result, and 'Never share keys' is a security pointer. It is front-loaded and free of 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly mentions the key part of the return value (requirements.accepts[0]) and gives a concrete usage example. It could mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the existing info, it feels sufficiently complete for the intended workflow.

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% description coverage, with both 'product' (enum with descriptions) and 'blocker_id' described. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning or usage guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Get the price and EXACT x402 payment requirements for resolving one blocker.' This specifies the verb (get), resource (price/payment requirements), and context (for resolving a blocker), distinguishing it from sibling tools like laen_find_blockers and laen_resolve.

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 practical usage guidance: it mentions the tool is 'FREE,' instructs to use the returned requirements.accepts[0] to construct/sign payment with an x402 client, and includes a security caveat ('Never share keys'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or exclude any alternative use cases, which would push it to 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses that the user's wallet will be charged ('PAID'), the tool fails closed ('no valid settled payment, no evidence'), and the fallback behavior when x_payment is missing. This is far beyond a generic 'resolve' claim.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: payment, input format, output, fail-closed behavior, and fallback. It is not overly long, and the most critical information ('PAID') 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?

Without an output schema, the description explains what the response will contain (verifiable evidence, optional certificate with verify_url) and the failure mode. It assumes some familiarity with x402 protocol but is otherwise complete for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect.

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 already covers blocker_id and the product enum (67% coverage). The description adds valuable semantics for x_payment ('base64 X-PAYMENT header value your client produced') and for product=certificate ('anchored certificate with verify_url'), which are not in the schema. This meaningfully improves parameter 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?

The description clearly states this tool submits a signed x402 payment payload to resolve a blocker and receive independently verifiable evidence. It uses specific verbs ('Submit', 'receive the resolution') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the payment/resolution step, while laen_find_blockers and laen_quote cover discovery and quoting.

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 gives clear context on when to call: after producing a signed X-PAYMENT header, or if no x_payment is provided, it returns 402 requirements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the workflow is implied: quote, then resolve with payment.

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