escrow

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

The description mentions the refund effect, which provides useful behavioral context. However, it omits details like idempotency, authentication requirements, or what happens if the quest is not in an open state.

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and effect. It is nearly complete, though it lacks mention of error conditions or return value.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the questId parameter beyond its existence. While questId is self-explanatory, the description could clarify how to obtain it (e.g., from list_open_quests).

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 action (cancel), the target (an open quest created by the platform), and the effect (refunding escrowed funds). It distinguishes itself from siblings like complete_quest and get_quest.

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 for platform-created quests but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_quest or when not to use it (e.g., for non-platform quests).

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 disclose behavioral traits. It mentions releasing payment, but does not indicate authorization needs, irreversibility, or error conditions. More context is needed for a mutation tool.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be expanded slightly to include usage context without losing conciseness.

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 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks information on the completion process, return value, error handling, or prerequisites. Sibling tools like 'prepare_accept_quest' likely have richer descriptions.

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 adds no meaning to 'questId'. It does not explain where to obtain the ID, its relation to the quest, or any constraints beyond the JSON schema's integer type.

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 action ('complete'), the resource ('accepted quest created by the platform'), and the consequence ('releasing payment to the worker'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_quest' (opposite action) and 'get_quest' (read-only).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cancel_quest' or 'prepare_open_dispute'. It implies the quest must be accepted but does not state prerequisites or provide a decision logic.

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 full burden but only states 'Get details', implying a read-only operation. No mention of side effects, permissions, or return structure.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words. Directly states the core purpose.

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?

Tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but completeness is minimal. Lacks context about the returned data structure, common use cases, or relation to other tools beyond sibling names.

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 0%, yet the description only mentions 'wallet address' generically. It does not explain the parameter format (e.g., Ethereum address pattern) or constraints beyond the schema regex.

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 action 'Get', the resource 'details of a registered agent', and the identifier 'by wallet address'. This distinguishes from sibling tools focused on quests and stats.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_stats, or any prerequisites (e.g., agent must be registered). The description is purely functional.

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?

As a get operation, it is implicitly non-destructive, but no explicit statement about safety, idempotence, or response format. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden but provides minimal behavioral detail.

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 sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks usage context and parameter elaboration. It does not explain what happens if the quest is not found or how to list quests first.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter 'questId' is only implied by 'by ID', but its type and constraints are solely in the schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'details of a specific quest', and the identifier 'by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_quest or complete_quest which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_open_quests). No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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 must disclose behavior. It states the statistics returned (quest count, agent count, fee) but does not elaborate on what 'fee' means or any other behavioral aspects like read-only nature, freshness, or error conditions.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous 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 tool has no output schema, the description should ideally describe the return structure. It lists the stats but not their format or types, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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, so the input schema already fully defines the interface. The description adds no param information, but with 100% coverage, baseline 4 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'platform statistics', listing specific items (quest count, agent count, fee). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on individual quests or agents.

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 use when overall platform statistics are needed, but provides no explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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 says 'all quests' but the limit parameter (default 20, max 50) implies pagination or truncation. This behavioral trait is not disclosed. No annotations are provided to supplement. The description does not explain what happens with the limit or how results are ordered.

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, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main action, but could be restructured to include key information without significantly increasing length.

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 presence of a limit parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description should at least mention pagination behavior, default limit, or result ordering. It does not provide enough context for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the description does not mention the only parameter 'limit'. The schema provides default/min/max, but the description adds no semantic value such as explaining that limit controls pagination. With low coverage, the description must compensate, which it fails to do.

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 'List all quests with Open status' uses a specific verb 'List', clearly identifies the resource 'quests', and specifies the filter 'Open status'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools which are mutations or single-resource fetches.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quest (single quest) or cancel_quest (mutation). The agent must infer from context. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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 exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool produces unsigned calldata (non-mutating) and requires agent signing, but omits details like error conditions, required permissions, or 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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core action and follow-up steps. It is concise without wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the parameter.

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?

With no output schema and only one parameter, the description minimally explains the return (unsigned calldata) but does not specify format, size, or handling of errors. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 the `questId` parameter at all. While the sole parameter is inferable, the description adds no semantic context about its source or constraints (e.g., that it must be an existing quest ID).

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 action: 'Get unsigned transaction calldata for accepting a quest.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('unsigned transaction calldata'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on preparation, contrasting with tools like cancel_quest or get_quest.

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 a workflow (agent signs and broadcasts) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as prepare_open_dispute or when not to use it. No prerequisites or context about quest availability are mentioned.

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 disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool prepares calldata (non-executing), but does not state side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or what happens after obtaining the calldata. The verb 'get' hints at read-only operations, but this is insufficient for a blockchain transaction preparation.

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 that efficiently communicates the core action. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the verb and object.

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 involving blockchain transaction preparation (potentially costly), the description is too sparse. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., quest status, dispute rules), expected outcomes, and integration with other tools. Given no output schema or annotations, more detail is needed for safe and correct usage.

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 does not mention the single parameter 'questId' or explain its role (e.g., which quest to dispute). The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's type and minimum.

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 action ('Get unsigned transaction calldata') and the target ('opening a dispute on a quest'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which handle quest acceptance, completion, or cancellation. However, the jargon 'unsigned transaction calldata' may be unclear to some agents without blockchain context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., quest must be open, agent registered), or conditions that should be met before invocation. The description implies it is for dispute initiation but offers no exclusions or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the tool 'gets' calldata, implying no direct mutation, but does not confirm that it is non-destructive or whether permissions are needed. It lacks details on side effects or subsequent steps like signing.

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 very concise (single sentence) but lacks structure. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more informative without increasing length significantly. The key information is front-loaded, but the sentence is too short to convey sufficient detail.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the calldata looks like, the return type, or any constraints. For a tool with 2 required parameters and a specific role (preparation), more context is needed for an agent to understand the full 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. However, it does not describe the 'handle' and 'description' parameters at all, leaving their purpose and constraints unexplained beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'unsigned transaction calldata' with the specific purpose 'registering as an agent'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_agent' (fetching agent info) and 'prepare_accept_quest' (different action).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not explain prerequisites, what happens after getting calldata, or contrast with sibling tools. For example, it does not clarify if this is a prerequisite to actually registering.

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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only analysis and suggestion, but does not clarify whether it is deterministic or based on rules, nor what the exact return format is. It is somewhat transparent but lacks depth.

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 of 12 words, conveying the essential action and output without any waste. It is highly concise and 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core function but lacks details on how the suggestion is returned (e.g., string field in response). It is minimally adequate but not fully complete for an agent to understand the exact 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not add semantic details to the parameter beyond restating its role. It does not provide examples, format constraints, or any extra context that helps an agent understand the parameter beyond its basic type.

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 action ('analyze a quest description') and the output ('suggest an appropriate deadline tier'), with specific tiers listed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are action-oriented (cancel, complete, get).

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 when a quest description needs a deadline suggestion, but it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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