macro-pulse-x402

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the computation basis (GDP growth, inflation, unemployment), output direction (improving/stable/deteriorating), and cost. However, it does not describe edge-case behaviors, rate limits, or data freshness. The lack of contradiction with annotations (none provided) keeps it at a mid-level score.

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 sentences long, with the first sentence defining the tool's function and the second providing pricing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. No fluff or 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core output logic and cost. However, it misses the expected format of country_code, provides no usage context versus the batch sibling, and does not describe the response structure beyond 'directional signal'. These gaps make it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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% description coverage, and the description only says 'for a country' without clarifying the expected format of country_code (e.g., ISO code, name, case sensitivity). The parameter name 'Country Code' gives a hint, but the description adds no additional semantic value, leaving ambiguity for 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 states the tool computes an economic momentum score for a country, synthesizing GDP growth, inflation, and unemployment into a directional signal. This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling macro_pulse_batch, so it misses a point for 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus macro_pulse_batch. It mentions pricing, but not context like 'use for a single country' or 'for multiple countries, use batch'. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so usage context is lacking.

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 burden. It discloses important behavioral details: the tool returns the same momentum score format as macro_pulse, accepts comma-separated countries, and has a flat price via x402 (USDC on Base). It also notes the container limitation of up to 8 countries. This is useful context, though it does not describe the response structure or error handling.

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. The first sentence states the core functionality and input format; the second adds cost and comparison details. Every word earns its place.

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 batch tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains how to use it, the pricing model, and the relationship to the sibling tool. It lacks specifics about the response format, but that is not critical for invoking the tool correctly. A 4 is appropriate.

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 no description for the country_codes parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by stating that it takes up to 8 comma-separated countries. This clearly defines the expected input format, making the parameter semantics unambiguous.

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 this tool provides the same momentum score as macro_pulse but supports up to 8 comma-separated countries in one call. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool macro_pulse by highlighting the batching capability and cost advantage.

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 context for when to use this tool: when you need momentum scores for multiple countries. It also names the alternative (macro_pulse) and explains the cost benefit (cheaper than repeated calls). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the implication is clear.

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