6Frame Verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the underlying REST endpoint (POST /v1/credits/checkout), that an Idempotency-Key is required (retry-safety behavior), and that it returns a Stripe Checkout URL rather than completing payment itself. It omits auth requirements and whether this is a sandbox/verification path despite the 'verify_' prefix.

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-loads the action and price, then appends the endpoint, idempotency requirement, and return value. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is 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 zero-input tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential calling facts: fixed price, endpoint, idempotency key, and return value. Missing only peripheral context such as auth requirements and error 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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The pricing details it does add are behavioral, not parameter-related.

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?

Names a specific verb (Buy) and resource (prepaid credit pack), and pins down the exact amount ($100 pack, $110 usable) rather than leaving it vague. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like verify_get_credits, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 only implied by the verb 'Buy' — an agent can infer you call this when you want to purchase credits, but the description gives no conditions, prerequisites, or guidance on when to prefer this over verify_quote or verify_get_credits.

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. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description does not state authentication requirements, side effects, whether quote_id is required, or what happens if payment_mode is omitted. It mentions payment_mode values but provides no other behavioral context for a write operation.

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 fragment that is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool. It wastes no words, though its extreme terseness contributes to gaps covered in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin for a mutation tool. It does not explain required parameters, return values, side effects, or failure modes, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke it reliably.

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 add meaning by identifying quote_id as the source and listing permitted payment_mode values (checkout, payment_intent, credit), which the schema does not. However, it omits requiredness and format details for quote_id, leaving key parameter semantics underspecified.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create order from quote_id.' It also specifies the payment_mode options, so the agent knows the core action. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like verify_quote or verify_submit_job, leaving the agent to infer when creating an order is appropriate versus other quote-related operations.

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. The description implies it is used when converting a quote into an order, but it does not state prerequisites, when-not-to-use conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools such as verify_quote or verify_buy_credits.

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or how the tool behaves. The only behavioral hint is that it returns specific pricing data, but this is incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely short and contains no wasted words. However, it is a fragmented list rather than a structured sentence, which slightly reduces clarity. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but lacks front-loaded framing.

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 should explain return values. It lists 'profiles' and 'price/rate limits' with concrete prices, which is a start, but it leaves 'profiles' ambiguous and does not describe the full shape of returned capabilities. It is minimally adequate but has clear 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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a burden. Per the rubric, zero parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning 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 is a fragment ('Profiles, price/rate limits...') without an explicit verb or sentence structure. While the tool name implies retrieval, 'profiles' is vague and the fragment does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like verify_get_credits. The specific pricing details add some clarity, but the overall purpose remains only vaguely conveyed.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or sibling tools to route the agent correctly. It simply lists content without 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 carries the burden. The 'REST GET' phrasing signals a safe read with no side effects, and it names the endpoint path, but there is no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the ledger is paginated or truncated.

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 compact line that front-loads the returned resource before the endpoint detail. Efficient, though the terse em-dash format reads more like metadata than guidance.

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 parameterless read with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (balance and ledger) and the transport (REST GET). Little more is needed, though auth/scope context would round it out.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is unconditional.

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 the specific resource returned: prepaid credit balance and ledger, plus the underlying REST endpoint. It is distinguishable from the mutating sibling verify_buy_credits, though the verb is only implied by 'GET' rather than stated 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the name and the 'GET' hint that this is a read-only balance lookup, and nothing explains when to prefer verify_buy_credits or other siblings.

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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether it is read-only, what job states are returned, or what happens when job_id is omitted (the schema marks it non-required). Only the word 'Get' implies a read operation.

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?

Three words are brief but the brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no substantive content that 'earns its place' because almost no information is conveyed.

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 job-polling tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented identifier parameter, the description omits everything an agent needs: the meaning of job_id, valid job states, and whether to poll. It is far too thin for the tool's role in an async 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?

The single parameter job_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not its format, not where it comes from, not that it is effectively needed despite being non-required. With low coverage the description must compensate and it does not.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Get job status') that tells an agent this is a read of a job's state. It does not, however, distinguish this job-status fetch from sibling job tools such as verify_submit_job or verify_get_report.

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 alternatives, no mention of polling cadence, and no indication of whether job_id must come from a prior verify_submit_job call. The agent is left to infer all usage 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 carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is read-only, whether it requires authentication, whether job_id is mandatory (the schema marks 0 required parameters despite having one), or what "terminal" state implies.

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?

Three words is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded purpose or detail because no content exists to trim.

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 an undocumented parameter, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what it returns, when it is valid, or how 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% for the single parameter job_id, and the description does not mention it at all. It neither says what job ID should be supplied nor what happens when it is omitted, leaving the only parameter entirely undocumented.

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?

"Get terminal report" restates the tool name verify_get_report almost verbatim. It names a verb and a nominal resource, but "terminal report" is undefined and gives no way to distinguish this from siblings like verify_get_job or verify_get_capabilities.

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 statement of when to use this tool, what a "terminal" report means, or how it relates to verify_get_job and the other verify_* siblings. No conditions, prerequisites, 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.

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 says only that it creates a quote, omitting permissions, side effects, reversibility, rate limits, and any other operational context.

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, short sentence with the action front-loaded, but it includes a REST endpoint detail that adds little value and the structure is somewhat confusing due to the name mismatch.

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 two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, what the inputs mean, or how it relates to sibling tools.

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 exposes two parameters ('input' and 'profile') with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'same payload' does not explain what either parameter expects, leaving their semantics entirely undocumented.

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 ('Create website-acceptance quote') and resource, but this directly conflicts with the tool name 'verify_quote' and the sibling tools that all begin with 'verify_'. An agent expecting a verification tool would be misled into a creation operation.

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 only guidance is 'use REST POST /v1/quotes with same payload', which is an implementation hint rather than a directive on when to use this tool versus its verify_* siblings. No when/when-not conditions or alternatives 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 present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. 'Submit' implies a mutation, but nothing is said about side effects, idempotency, permissions, post-conditions, or error behavior. 'Paid order' is a weak hint about prerequisites but does not begin to cover the behavioral surface.

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?

It is a single four-word sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise; the sentence fails to carry the information an agent needs and does not front-load any actionable structure.

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 three undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling guidance, this description is radically incomplete. An agent lacks the context to call it correctly or know how it differs from related verify_* tools.

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?

'Paid order' loosely implies order_id refers to a paid order, but input and profile are completely undefined, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the format or purpose of any of the three parameters, so it only marginally adds meaning beyond generic schema keys.

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 verb ('Submit') and a resource ('job') qualified by 'for paid order', but 'job' is never defined and the description does not differentiate this tool from siblings like verify_get_job or verify_quote. The reader can guess it is a submission endpoint but not what a job is or what happens on submit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no explicit preconditions beyond the implied 'paid order' phrase. An agent is left to infer that this tool is only for paid orders from four words.

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