Agent Bazaar

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is a search/list operation and describes the returned card fields, implying a read-only action. However, it does not specify pagination, auth requirements, or behavior with an empty query vs. a provided query.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and uses the dash to add scope clarification without bloat. It is concise and well-structured, though it could have named an alternative tool for completeness.

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 is adequate for a simple search/list tool, covering scope and return fields, but with no output schema or annotations it lacks behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or error conditions. Overall, it leaves some gaps for an agent to fully know the call's behavior.

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 description only implies the query parameter via 'Search', and says nothing about 'limit'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to clarify the meaning of parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., limit default/max).

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 action ('Search or list') and a specific resource ('A2A agent registry'), and clarifies the scope by contrasting with Agent Bazaar's own cards. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from related 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?

It communicates when to use it (to search or list agent cards) and explicitly excludes one case (not Agent Bazaar's own), but does not name sibling tools or state conditions for alternatives. Thus it provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'List' (read-only) but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, whether the host must be registered, or what happens for unknown hosts. For a discovery tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the return format, error behavior, or host format, which an agent would need to invoke 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 says 'given provider host' without explaining what a valid host looks like (URL, domain, path). The schema only says 'string', so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 ('List') and resource ('every resource published by a given provider host'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_resource or list_resources. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate.

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: call this when you need all resources from a provider host. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like list_resources or search_resources, but the 'given provider host' qualifier gives some context.

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 must carry the safety/behavior burden. 'Fetch' clearly indicates a read operation and 'full card' indicates the response scope, but it does not disclose error behavior, required authorization, or what fields a 'card' contains.

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?

One short sentence front-loads the action and object, with no filler or repeated schema information. It earns its place by adding the 'registered' and 'full card' context.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), but the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should say more about what a 'full card' contains and what happens when no match is found. It is adequate but leaves those gaps.

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 has 0% property-description coverage, so the description must define the only parameter. It says 'slug or numeric id,' but the schema requires a string `slug`, so the accepted format is ambiguous and potentially misleading for an agent deciding what value to pass.

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 ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('one registered agent'), and signals the returned artifact ('full card'), which distinguishes it from the broader discover/list/search siblings. However, the claim 'by slug or numeric id' conflicts with a schema that only defines a string `slug`, introducing ambiguity and keeping it from 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?

Use is implied: call this when you need a single agent's full card by identifier. The description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though the singular 'one' hints at the distinction from discovery 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states this is a read operation that returns only pricing-related fields, not the full resource, and characterizes it as 'cheaper.' It does not cover errors or authorization, but for a simple one-parameter getter this is reasonable transparency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the output scope, the contrast with the full record, and the rationale for using this tool. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what the agent gets back (price/accepts[]) and what it omits (the full record). It is missing explicit failure/error behavior, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor 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?

The schema has a single 'slug' property with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal parameter meaning by tying the operation to 'a resource,' but it never explicitly explains that the slug identifies that resource or how to format it. Some inference is required.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a resource'), and a precise output scope ('just the price/accepts[]'). It also distinguishes itself from get_resource by explicitly saying it returns 'without the full record,' so an agent can tell it apart from sibling 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?

The description gives clear intended context: use it when the agent 'only needs to decide whether it can afford something.' It contrasts with the 'full record' path, implying get_resource as the alternative, but it does not explicitly name that sibling 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does convey that this is a read-only fetch and enumerates the returned fields, including conditional provider metadata. It does not disclose failure behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens when a resource is not found.

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 sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action before listing return contents. The colon-delimited field list is somewhat dense, but every part adds useful 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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential details: what is fetched, how the resource is identified, and what fields the response contains. Minor gaps like error behavior or not-found handling prevent a perfect score.

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 slug property has no description, but the description compensates by explaining that the parameter accepts a slug or numeric id. This is meaningful guidance for the single parameter, though it stops short of giving concrete format constraints or 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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Fetch one resource's full record') and names the identifier format ('by slug or numeric id'). It clearly distinguishes itself from list/search siblings by emphasizing a single full record, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you already have a slug or numeric id and need the full record, versus list_resources or search_resources for discovery. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling alternatives.

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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is returned but does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, whether any caching or rate limiting applies, or if any side effects occur. For a simple stats query, read-only is strongly implied, but the description does not state it, leaving a gap in transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states 'Catalog-wide totals' and then lists the exact metrics. Every word adds value, and there is 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the expected return fields. It is clear that the result is a summary of multiple aggregates. It could be slightly more explicit about the return shape (e.g., 'returns an object with these fields'), but the list of metrics is sufficient for an agent to understand what data it will receive.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and there is nothing to add. The lack of parameters is consistent with a catalog-wide summary tool.

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 provides catalog-wide totals and enumerates the specific metrics (listings, resources, accepts, merchants, 30-day call volume, network/source breakdown). This is a distinct purpose from sibling tools like get_agent or list_resources, which focus on individual entities or discovery, not aggregated statistics.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name and description imply it is for high-level catalog statistics, distinct from the discovery and entity-specific tools. It would benefit from a note like 'Use this for overall catalog health or summary metrics, not for individual entity details,' but the absence of parameters and the clear scope make the intended usage reasonably inferable.

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 of disclosing behavior. It reveals pagination and the ranking rule ('30-day call volume') and recency option, which go beyond what the schema states. It doesn't explicitly mention the return format or read-only nature, but for a listing tool this is adequate.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action, scope, and key behavior. No filler, no repetition, and every phrase adds value.

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 simple paginated list with three optional parameters, the description covers the core behavior, sort semantics, and pagination. It does not discuss when to choose sibling tools, but that is a usage-guideline concern. Overall, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of the sort enum values (popular = 30-day call volume, recent = recency) and implicitly covers limit/offset through the term 'Paginated'. The description adds meaningful context beyond raw schema types.

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 ('listing'), identifies a distinct resource ('every indexed resource'), and distinguishes itself from search_resources by implying a complete enumeration rather than a filtered query. It also conveys the ranking behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 clearly states the context: list all indexed resources with optional sorting. It is easy for an agent to infer when to use this tool versus get_resource (single item) or search_resources (filtered results), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses a non-obvious behavior: ranking differs by query mode (relevance vs. 30-day call volume). It does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or result shape, but search is an inherently read-only operation and the ranking detail is the most relevant behavioral trait here.

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 tool's purpose and filters, followed by the ranking rule. No filler or repetition of schema defaults beyond what is useful.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema and several closely related sibling tools, the description omits result semantics, limit behavior, and sibling differentiation, and leaves most filter parameters unexplained. The ranking note adds value but the overall picture is incomplete.

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 low (29%) and the description only repeats filter names without defining asset, scheme, or payTo semantics; it also omits the limit parameter. It adds the keyword/filter grouping and maxUsdPrice intent, but does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific action ('Search the marketplace') on a clear resource and enumerates the available filters. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_resources or get_resource, so it stops 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 it: keyword and/or filter search on the marketplace, and it contrasts text-query versus filter-only query behavior. It provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer list_resources, get_resource, or discover_agents instead, so usage is only implied.

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