Agent402 — pay-per-call web tools

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the specific information provided (free vs wallet, paid access methods), going beyond 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every part is informative, with no wasteful text.

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 an informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the scope of information (free tier, paid access) sufficiently.

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?

There are no parameters, but schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning about the output content, fulfilling the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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: providing information about the free tier of agent402.tools, what's free vs wallet-only, and paid access. It differentiates from siblings like call_tool and search_tools by focusing on informational content.

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 when to use this tool (to learn about the connector), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Siblings are distinct, so usage is clear enough.

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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: pure-CPU tools execute free (rate-limited), wallet-only tools return paid access instructions. This goes beyond what annotations offer.

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, no fluff. First sentence states the core purpose and how to get the slug. Second sentence adds key behavioral info. Front-loaded and 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 2 params with full schema, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers how to find the slug, free vs paid, and rate limits. It is mostly complete, though it could briefly mention the expected output format (implied by 'run').

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%, baseline 3. The description adds a concrete example for slug ('convert-miles-to-kilometers') and mentions that params should match the tool's inputSchema. This adds marginal value but does not deeply explain parameter semantics.

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 runs an Agent402 tool by slug, and distinguishes from sibling tools (search_tools for finding slugs, about_agent402 for info). The verb 'run' and resource 'Agent402 tool' are specific.

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 tells users to find slugs with search_tools, providing clear context. It also explains the free vs paid distinction, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives beyond search_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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive. Description adds context about return values and workflow, but does not disclose any potential side effects or limitations beyond 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?

Description is a single sentence that conveys necessary information, though slightly lengthy; no wasted words.

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, but description explicitly lists return fields (slug, price, input schema, example) and provides a clear workflow, making it complete for a discovery 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description reiterates 'task' and implies 'limit' via 'Max results (default 5)' but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond schema examples.

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 the verb 'describe a task' and resource 'Agent402 tool(s)', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it finds best-matching tools with slug, price, input schema, and example, unlike search_tools which may only list.

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?

Description implies when to use (to skip searching/exploring) and provides a workflow (then call call_tool), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to search_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?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds context about the payment model and return format, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions are present.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads key information such as the catalog scope, free vs. paid tools, and return data. 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 the simple structure (2 parameters, no output schema) and the annotations, the description provides all necessary context including what the tool returns and usage examples. It is fully adequate for an agent to use 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 provides descriptions for both parameters, and the description adds value by giving example queries. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the examples raise the score.

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 that the tool searches the Agent402 tool catalog, providing specific examples of queries and indicating what is returned (slugs and input schemas). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that it helps find tools before invoking them via call_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 effectively conveys when to use this tool (to find tools in the catalog) and includes valuable context about free vs. paid tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to the sibling about_agent402, which could provide general information.

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