DIEM Agent Workers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool is free, which is useful context, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects, though for a simple listing these are less critical.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a valuable cost-related note ('This tool is free') without 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main return categories (prices, schemas, limits, endpoints) and cost behavior. However, terms like 'x402-paid' and 'bounded' are undefined, and the relationship to quote/prepare siblings is not explained, leaving minor 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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description instead enumerates the output content (exact USDC prices, schemas, limits, endpoints), which helps the agent understand what the listing will provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('bounded x402-paid workers') and the exact data returned (USDC prices, schemas, limits, endpoints). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quote_diem_worker and prepare_diem_worker_call, which are not list 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?

The description implies this is a free catalog/inspection tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling quote/prepare tools. The phrase 'This tool is free' hints that it is a safe way to browse before committing, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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 burden and discloses key behavior: it returns a request shape rather than executing, and highlights that the server never receives wallet private keys. It could add error behavior or prerequisites but offers valuable non-obvious 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each clause adds value. It avoids redundancy and is well below typical verbosity.

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?

While it captures the tool's purpose and execution path, it lacks parameter-level detail and output schema specifics. The input object remains unexplained, and the 'exact HTTP request shape' is referred to without describing its format, leaving uncertainty for an 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage. The description only references 'worker selection' but doesn't explain the worker enum meaning or the input object structure. It fails to provide necessary guidance for constructing the input 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?

The description clearly states the tool validates worker selection and returns the exact HTTP request shape, using specific verb 'return' and resource 'HTTP request shape.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_diem_workers and quote_diem_worker, which list and quote workers respectively.

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 provides clear usage context by instructing to execute the request with an x402-capable client or the CDP Bazaar MCP server, and notes the server never receives private keys. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this over list or quote, only implying selection precedes this.

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 disclosure burden. It adds useful traits ('free', 'exact-price') and implies a read-only quote operation, but it does not mention side effects, validity period, or error handling. The behavior is not fully transparent.

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 conveys the core action, price characteristics, and target scope without unnecessary words.

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 relatively simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations). The description gives the essential purpose but does not describe the response format or any prerequisites. It is adequate for a basic quote tool but leaves gaps around return value structure and edge cases.

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. However, it merely says 'for one worker', which adds little meaning beyond the schema's property name and enum. It does not explain what a 'worker' is or how to choose among the enum values, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name.

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's function: 'Return a free exact-price x402 USDC quote for one worker.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('x402 USDC quote'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on quoting rather than listing or preparing calls.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear, implying it should be used when a worker quote is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over sibling tools like list_diem_workers or prepare_diem_worker_call. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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