KEVAREMESH Gateway

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals the short-lived token, the absence of an additional KEVAREMESH fee, the challenge/retry requirement, direct payment to the Provider, and that PAYMENT-SIGNATURE is forwarded only to that Provider and is not stored. This gives agents an unusually complete behavioral model of the protocol.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action and then add the essential payment and forwarding details without redundancy. Each clause contributes necessary protocol 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-phase protocol with no output schema, it covers the first response, the client's required payment action, the retry, and the gateway's non-storage behavior. It does not describe final response shape or error cases explicitly, but the core invocation flow is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains execution_token as short-lived and from kevaremesh_gateway_route, and identifies request as the selected upstream request, but it does not explain how request.body, request.query, or request.method map to the upstream call or interact with the challenge/retry flow.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Execute the selected upstream request using a short-lived token from kevaremesh_gateway_route.' It clearly separates this execution step from routing/quoting siblings and explains the two-phase x402 flow.

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 states the prerequisite execution_token source and the workflow: first call gets the Provider's x402 challenge, the x402-capable client pays directly, then retries with the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE. It could add explicit exclusions or contrast with finalize/quote, but the route-then-execute ordering is clear.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description says 'pay one bounded KEVAREMESH gateway fee' and 'receive the withheld provider results', which implies a financial side effect and a state transition, yet readOnlyHint=true suggests no state change. This is a potential contradiction: paying a fee and finalizing a job is not read-only. The description does not clarify idempotency (idempotentHint=false) or whether re-reading with the same token is idempotent. It adds some context about re-reading without another charge, but the fee/payment language conflicts with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome, and the second sentence adds a useful re-read nuance. It is concise and structured, though the phrase 'KEVAREMESH' is repeated multiple times, which is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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 and only 2 parameters, the description covers the main flow: finalize after upstream success, pay fee, receive results, and re-read without charge. However, it does not explain what happens if upstream executions have not succeeded, what 'bounded fee' means in practice, or what the response contains. The readOnlyHint contradiction also leaves the agent uncertain about side effects. It is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'finalize token' and 'gateway_request_id' implicitly: 'valid finalize token' and 'gateway_request_id' are not explicitly described, but the description references the token and the job context. It does not explain the format or relationship between the two parameters beyond what the schema provides (uuid, minLength 20). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds minimal semantic value over 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 states a specific verb ('finalize') and resource ('KEVAREMESH gateway'), and explains the action: pay a bounded fee and receive withheld provider results. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'after all prepared upstream executions succeed' and 'already-settled jobs can be read again', which implies a finalization/read step distinct from execute/quote/route. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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: use after all prepared upstream executions succeed, and it notes that already-settled jobs can be read again with the valid finalize token without another charge. This implies when to use it and provides a re-read use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate timing.

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: it is free, provides a bounded fee quote, and does not resell provider services. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct value: core capability, return contents, and a safety/exclusion statement. No filler 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?

The description covers return values and non-spending behavior, which is useful given there is no output schema. However, the input schema is complex and nested, and the description provides no high-level guidance on constructing requirements or setting budget/preference, leaving a significant completeness 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 0%, so the description had the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not mention requirements, preference, max_total_upstream_usd, or any nested fields. The all-important 'requirements' parameter is completely undocumented in prose; an agent must rely entirely on 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 identifies a quote/discovery tool: 'Free discovery and route planning across eligible external AI/API supply' and states exactly what it returns. It also differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'Does not spend funds or resell provider services', which separates it from execute/finalize 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 implies usage during planning: obtaining a quote before spending funds, and explicitly notes it does not spend funds. However, it never names sibling tools or states when to prefer execute/finalize/route, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no payment is required, providers are probed, no KEVAREMESH fee is charged, and returned execution tokens are short-lived. This goes beyond the annotations and is consistent with them.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. Nearly every sentence adds value, though 'No KEVAREMESH fee is charged here' slightly repeats 'Free route preparation.'

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 covers the tool's outcome and some behavioral traits but omits parameter semantics, does not explain how to structure a requirements request, and does not state how this step fits with the execute/finalize flow. With no output schema, the return description is only partially sufficient.

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 provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain what 'requirements' should contain, how 'preference' affects selection, or what 'max_total_upstream_usd' controls. The nested requirements schema is complex, so this is a significant gap.

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 function: free route preparation by selecting eligible public x402 providers, probing them without payment, and returning current payment challenges and short-lived execution tokens. This clearly separates it from the execute, finalize, and quote siblings even without naming them.

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 use case is implied: prepare a route before execution. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus kevaremesh_gateway_execute, kevaremesh_gateway_finalize, or kevaremesh_gateway_quote, and it provides no exclusion criteria.

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