laen

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 thoroughly discloses payment semantics, fail-closed behavior, proof-gating, the no-charge-on-failure guarantee, the fact that authorization is never captured, and the 402 fallback when x_payment is missing.

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?

All sentences are substantive and the description front-loads the critical payment cue. It explains success, failure, no-charge behavior, and missing-payment behavior in a compact, structured paragraph without redundant 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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers when to call, preconditions, failure modes, payment safety, and receipt outputs. It gives the agent enough context to select, invoke, and understand the result flow.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is satisfied. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: x_payment must be signed by your wallet, omitted payment causes a 402 response, and service_id maps to soldier ids like sol-01-web-search. It does not fully explain the shape of the input object, but the schema covers that.

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 is a paid purchase/execution tool: submit the X-PAYMENT payload and receive the deliverable plus a hash receipt. It distinguishes itself from siblings like army_list_services and army_quote by emphasizing payment and the signed payload requirement.

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 explicitly says this tool is for submitting a signed X-PAYMENT payload and that without x_payment it returns 402 requirements so the agent can pay and retry. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for quoting or listing services, though the sibling names and context make that reasonably 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool is FREE, settlement is proof-gated, and failed deliverables are never charged, which are important for agent decision-making.

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 long single paragraph but each sentence adds substantive value. It front-loads 'FREE' and the core purpose, making it scannable despite its length. It could be broken into lists but remains 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?

The description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (price, URL, acceptance rule), the x402 business model, and the breadth of data domains. With no output schema, this level of detail is complete and actionable.

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 both parameters described, so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description does not add new meaning beyond the optional filters mentioned; it stays at baseline 3.

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 lists the LedgerProof Settlement Army's 21 live data services and their costs, with a specific resource and scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like army_buy and army_quote by positioning as a catalog/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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance with 'Call this first to see what exists and what it costs,' indicating when to use it. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is obvious enough to imply it's the prerequisite before purchasing.

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 fully discloses critical behaviors: it returns a verbatim 402 challenge, never holds funds, never signs, and instructs the user to use their own client/wallet. This transparency covers side effects and security boundaries comprehensively.

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 concise, with three sentences that flow logically: purpose, usage example, and security warning. It avoids redundancy and maintains a clear structure, earning high marks for efficiency.

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?

The description covers the essential context: the tool returns payment requirements in the form of a 402 challenge, with guidance on using the output (requirements.accepts[0]) and a concrete example (x402-fetch createPaymentHeader). It lacks an explicit output schema but still provides sufficient operational context.

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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters (input and service_id) with examples. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing 'specific input' but does not introduce new semantic details beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool's primary function: obtaining x402 payment requirements for a specific Settlement service input. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'for one Settlement service' and 'specific input you intend to buy', making the scope 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 usage instructions (use requirements.accepts[0] to construct payment, never send keys) but does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like army_buy or laen_quote. It implies usage when you have a specific input but lacks explicit alternatives or when-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?

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.