clawmerchants-mcp-gateway

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the x402 payment endpoint and describes the purchase protocol step-by-step (HTTP 402, Base L2 USDC, x-payment header), which is rich behavioral context. It does not explicitly state read-only status or discuss auth/rate limits, but the operation is clearly a read by name.

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, with the purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is detailed but directly relevant to using the returned endpoint. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the key output (payment endpoint) and the complete purchase workflow. This gives an agent all necessary context to use the tool 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 coverage is 100% for the single asset_id parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get details for a specific asset' with a specific verb and resource. The inclusion of 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling list_assets, which enumerates assets.

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?

Provides a clear usage scenario by explaining the payment flow for purchasing an asset. Implicitly contrasts with list_assets by saying 'specific asset', but does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use the tool.

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 transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns asset IDs, names, prices, categories, and descriptions, and that assets are purchasable via x402. However, it omits any statement about read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or rate limits, which would improve operational clarity.

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 resource, then adds payment context and return fields. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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?

This is a low-complexity list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers return fields, marketplace context, and payment mechanism, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. A minor gap is the lack of explicit sibling guidance, but overall completeness is strong.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (limit, search, category) with descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which lands at 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('available data assets, skills, and tools in the ClawMerchants marketplace'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tool 'get_asset' by implying this is the browsing/list operation versus a single-asset fetch.

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 clear context: this lists marketplace assets and notes they are purchasable via x402 micropayment. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'get_asset' or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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