INCOME 2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by specifying that the result is ledger-backed and only actual settled earnings, and that estimates are explicitly excluded. 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?

The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence. Every word adds value, and the key distinction between actuals and estimates is stated immediately.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile, and the tool is a simple read-only check. However, the description does not state the return format or clarify how account_handle and account_token should be sourced, and there is no output schema to fill that 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain account_handle or account_token at all. Since there is no complementary documentation in the schema, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics completely unexplained.

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 operation ('check') and a specific resource ('ledger-backed actual settled earnings'). It also draws a meaningful boundary by saying 'estimates are not earnings', which helps distinguish this from estimate-oriented tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 the tool: when checking actual settled earnings rather than estimates. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternative tool or provide clear when-not-to-use / use-this-instead guidance, leaving the usage context mostly inferred.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful extra constraint: offers are funded and legitimate, and the user must complete human actions truthfully, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss return format, result size, or any call-specific side effects.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and the most important usage constraint without filler or redundancy. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not say what the tool returns, how results should be presented, or how the four parameters affect the search. Given the sibling tools include get_earning_options and start_agent_earn, the description leaves important selection and invocation context unclear.

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 0% and the description does not mention device, country, account_handle, or zero_spend_only. There is no parameter-level meaning to help an agent decide how to set these values, so the description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's missing documentation.

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 identifies the operation as finding offers and adds specific qualifiers ('funded legitimate human-required') beyond the title, so an agent can tell this is about user-performed paid opportunities rather than automated earning. It does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'human-required' and the warning that 'human actions must be completed truthfully by the user' imply this tool should be used when a real person will manually complete offers, not when using automated agents. However, no alternatives are named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are live, income is not guaranteed, and no funds are transferred. These caveats go beyond the structured annotations and help set correct expectations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action, the live data type, and the key caveats are all front-loaded and each phrase contributes meaningful 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only check, the description effectively communicates what the tool returns and warns about important limitations. It does not specify the exact response shape or how availability is represented, but the simplicity of the operation and the absence of parameters make this adequate.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter documentation gap for the description to fill. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description is not required to explain parameter behavior that does not exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('live Human Earn and Agent Earn availability'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool exposes. The 'live' qualifier helps, but there is no explicit contrast with sibling tools like check_earnings or find_paid_opportunities, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of its siblings, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. The title implies 'checking ways to earn now,' but the description does not state the intended context, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more 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?

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: retry-safe, idempotent, creates a durable receipt, and never signs, sends, settles, or custodies funds. This provides critical safety context and is fully consistent with the idempotentHint and destructiveHint 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 two tight sentences with no filler. The key purpose and safety constraints are front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful 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?

The safety and purpose context is strong, but the tool involves six parameters, a nested object, and no output schema. The description does not explain expected_network, the role of body/method, or what the durable receipt contains, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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 0%, and the description only loosely maps to parameters: 'max spend' hints at max_usd and 'idempotent intent' hints at idempotency_key. The url, body, method, and expected_network parameters remain semantically under-described, limiting correct invocation.

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 identifies the tool as an x402 purchase preflight/guard, with specific capabilities: max spend limits, idempotent intent, and durable receipts. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling earnings-focused tools by name and stated 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 word 'preflight' and the safety framing imply this should be used before or instead of executing a purchase, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is present only by implication.

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 provides strong behavioral guarantees beyond annotations: HYDRA never receives the buyer's private key, never uses owner working capital, never hands the job to a human broker, and can prepare buyer-signed x402 execution. It also notes the current beta fee is $0, adding useful context beyond the structured hints.

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 front-loaded with a concise action statement and then adds behavioral, security, and fee context in efficient sentences. There is no filler or repetition.

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 a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description omits a required parameter (idempotency_key) and the meaning of the boolean options. It also does not explain what the caller receives after submission, leaving important invocation details unclear.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps 'desired result' to task and 'max budget' to max_budget_usd, but it never explains the required idempotency_key, nor the semantics of execute_if_free, allow_external_discovery, or params.

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 first sentence states a specific action (Submit) and core inputs (desired result plus max budget), and the rest names HYDRA and an autonomous route with potential x402 paid execution. This makes the tool's purpose clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like start_agent_earn.

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: submit a task and budget when you want HYDRA to autonomously find a route. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance, and it does not mention any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.

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 this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing pseudonymity, the canonical ledger, and the requirement for explicit user consent, going beyond the structured annotation fields.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. The core action and the critical usage constraint are stated clearly and efficiently.

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 core action and consent requirement, and annotations cover mutability and idempotency. However, it lacks parameter semantics, any mention of post-conditions, and does not help the agent understand what token or handle values should be provided.

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 0%, and the description gives no explanation of account_token or account_handle. The agent must rely on the parameter names alone, which is weak for a tool with no parameter-level documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Activate a pseudonymous INCOME 2 Agent Earn account in the canonical ledger.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which focus on checking earnings, finding opportunities, guarding purchases, and requesting outcomes.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Use only after explicit user request.' This is strong usage guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use the tool beyond the lack of user consent.

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