aptu.dev

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scoring model (weighted 0-100) and the rubric URL, which is useful, but says nothing about cost/payment requirements, whether the tool makes outbound network fetches, latency, failure behavior, or what the audit response 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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, then the rubric name, the check list, the scoring scale, and the reference link. The parenthetical check list is long but genuinely informative; nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should hint at the return shape (per-check results, score breakdown) and the payment gating. It partially covers scoring but leaves the response format and the payment flow for an agent to discover, which is a real 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented (domain with an example, payment_signature as 'x402 payment signature once settled'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Audits a domain's agent readiness') and enumerates the exact check categories (origin headers, robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap, mcp.json, A2A card, x402 manifest, etc.), so the agent knows precisely what the tool evaluates. None of the siblings (btc_regime, echo_probe, resume_eval, x402_preflight) overlap, so no sibling disambiguation is needed.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Critically, the presence of the x402_preflight sibling and a payment_signature parameter implies a payment-gated flow, but the description never says whether to run x402_preflight first, how to obtain/settle the signature, or what happens if payment is missing.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the gate logic and action outcomes, but it does not explain payment requirements, what happens when optional closes are omitted, or error behavior.

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 with no filler. It efficiently packs the resource, gate, outputs, and action semantics.

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, so the description usefully lists the expected return components: bull/bear, MA7, deviation pct, and action. It is mostly complete for this simple three-parameter computation, though payment-related behavior remains implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond connecting the MA7 gate conceptually to the inputs.

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 and resource: checking BTC spot regime against a 7-day moving-average gate. It identifies the key outputs and decision framing, which clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use it to check the BTC regime and decide entry favorability. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is a 'paid call' involving x402 payment. It says nothing about cost, per-call billing, what happens when payment is missing or invalid, or settlement timing — gaps an agent needs to know before invoking a monetized 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?

A single semicolon-joined sentence with zero filler, front-loading the mechanical behavior before the usage context. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 two-parameter echo tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back ('echoes ... back') and that the call is paid. The only meaningful omission is how payment_signature participates in the flow, which is the one detail an agent would still lack.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description restates the 'message' echo behavior but adds no meaning about payment_signature (when it is required, how it is obtained, or how it relates to the call flow), so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 and resource ('Echoes a JSON {message} back') and adds a distinguishing role: 'the simplest paid call for verifying your x402 payment flow.' An agent can tell this apart from x402_preflight and the other siblings by function, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 gives a clear use context: verifying an x402 payment flow, and positions itself as the simplest such call. It stops short of stating exclusions or explicitly routing to x402_preflight for richer payment checks, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only scoring operation with no side effects, does not mention the x402 payment step implied by the payment_signature parameter, and does not describe the shape of the score output. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scale and rubric appear immediately. It is efficient, though arguably undersized given four parameters and an undocumented payment flow.

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 core semantic (what is scored and on what scale) is covered, and no output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, a paid invocation path (payment_signature), an optional job-description tailoring input, and the meaning of the output 'format' parameter are all left unexplained, which matters for an agent assembling the call.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's rubric list does not clarify any parameter — it never explains that 'format' selects the output representation or that 'job_description' tailors scoring.

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 ('Scores'), resource ('a resume'), output scale (0-4), and the rubric dimensions (impact, parseability, executive framing, contact). This is far more specific than a generic 'evaluate resume'. Sibling tools (agent_readiness, btc_regime, echo_probe, x402_preflight) are unrelated utilities, so explicit differentiation is unnecessary and its absence costs little.

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 guidance on when to call this versus not, no mention that job_description is optional, and no mention of prerequisites such as payment. An agent learns nothing about the conditions under which scoring is appropriate or what to do if the resume is missing.

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. It usefully discloses that it probes a remote URL and performs an external facilitator cross-check, and that findings are 'advisory' (non-blocking), but it does not say whether the probe can trigger real payment settlement, whether it is strictly read-only, what timeouts or rate limits apply, or what auth is needed. These are material gaps for a tool that reaches out to third-party infrastructure.

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 with the resource and check set stated before the output promise; the parenthetical enumeration earns its space. Mildly dense jargon ('scar-tissue findings') costs a little clarity, but there is no 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the needed work: it names the checks and describes the return value as a graded 0-100 report with per-failure remedies. What remains missing is failure/error behavior and the conditions under which the optional payment_signature must be present.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds no further meaning. In particular it does not clarify the conditional role of payment_signature (when a settled signature must be supplied versus when the URL alone suffices), which is the one genuinely ambiguous parameter.

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 resource (a deployed x402 resource URL) and a specific operation (seller-side conformance pre-flight check), then enumerates the checks performed (schema validation, mechanism reachability, facilitator cross-check, advisory findings) and the output form (graded 0-100 report with per-failure remedies). None of the siblings (agent_readiness, btc_regime, echo_probe, resume_eval) overlap with this domain, so an agent can route to it confidently.

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?

'Pre-flight' implies it is run against a deployed endpoint before relying on it, but the description never states when to use it versus the siblings, nor any prerequisites (must the URL be an x402-enabled seller endpoint?). Usage is only inferable from the name and phrasing.

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