DexL Agents

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

The description adds the key behavioral trait that the catalogue is free and requires no payment, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't disclose the format or structure of the returned catalogue, leaving some uncertainty about how the information will be presented.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the free/no-payment detail. 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 zero-parameter, read-only catalogue tool, the description is largely complete. It could benefit from mentioning the output format or that it's a read-only operation, but the absence of parameters and the simple purpose make the current description sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 purpose: it lists everything DexL sells with prices, including per-call tools, models, and packaged products. It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering the full catalogue rather than a specific subset like models or price.

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 when to use it: when you need an overview of all offerings and prices. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like dexl_models or dexl_price, but the catalogue scope is clear enough for an agent to select it for broad pricing questions.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the free tier nature and the lack of payment requirements, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose expected response format, latency, rate limits, or any limitations of the free tier (e.g., response quality) beyond 'try before paying.' This is sufficient for a basic chat tool but lacks depth.

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, with the key information (free tier, no payment) front-loaded. It is concise, with no wasted words. The alternative use case is clearly stated in a short phrase.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use, and the free nature. It does not need to explain return values (no output schema) or complex behavior. Slight deductions for not mentioning any response format expectation, but it's adequate for a minimal chat tool.

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 100%, with 'prompt' described as 'What to ask.' and 'system' as 'Optional system instruction.' These are quite terse but combined with the schema's description, they are adequate. The description does not add much beyond the schema, but it does set the context that the prompt is for a chat completion. Thus, a baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool is for chat completion on the free tier, naming the specific model (dexl-free). It distinguishes it from paid models and provides a clear use case: 'Use it to try the gateway before paying for a stronger model.' This effectively separates it from the sibling tools, which are about catalogue, payment, models, and pricing.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'No wallet, no account, no payment header. Use it to try the gateway before paying for a stronger model.' This provides a clear rationale for using it over paid alternatives, and implicitly guides against using it for production or when higher quality is needed.

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 does describe the content topics (x402 flow, supported chains, local client), which implies the tool returns informational guidance, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what form the output takes.

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, tightly-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('How to pay') and then enumerates the specific coverage areas. No filler 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?

For a 0-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential topics an agent needs to decide whether to call it and what to expect. It is complete enough, though it could explicitly mention the output format (e.g., 'returns a text guide').

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 with 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters; it appropriately focuses on the informational content.

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 purpose: explaining how to pay for a DexL call, covering the x402 flow, supported chains, and the local signing client. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like dexl_price (pricing) and dexl_catalogue (offerings).

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 implied by the name and description: use this to learn how to pay. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions like 'if you need pricing, use dexl_price'.

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 that the free model requires no payment, which is useful behavioral/pricing context. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only listing, whether it hits a network endpoint, or what the response format looks like. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds the key free/payment detail. It is concise and every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with a clearer listing verb.

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-parameter listing tool, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource (chat models), the scope (through the gateway), and the notable free option. However, it does not mention what the output looks like, whether it includes pricing details, or how it relates to dexl_catalogue and dexl_price. Given the sibling ambiguity, a bit more context would help an agent select it confidently.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns/offers. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description states that this tool lists chat models callable through the gateway, including the free one with its id. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like dexl_free_chat (which likely performs the chat) and dexl_price (which likely shows pricing). It could be slightly more explicit that it is a catalogue/list operation, but the verb 'callable' and the mention of the free model id make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 the tool to consult for available models and the free model's id, and the sibling names suggest alternatives like dexl_free_chat for actually using the free model. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus dexl_catalogue or dexl_price, nor does it state exclusions. The context is implied 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it excellently. It discloses the key non-obvious behaviors: the request is sent without payment, the result is a 402 quote, the tool does not actually run, and it costs nothing.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical safety/cost behavior.

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 is sufficient for a simple 2-parameter pricing tool: it explains the input, the behavior, the return value (402 quote), and the lack of execution/cost. It does not detail the exact response shape, but that is minor given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: the body is transmitted as-is to obtain a quote, and the slug identifies a specific paid tool from the catalogue. This enriches the raw schema definitions.

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 ('Exact price of one paid tool for a given request body') and clearly distinguishes the tool from actually running the paid tool. It also ties to the sibling dexl_catalogue via the slug parameter, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: when you need a price quote without executing the tool or paying. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like dexl_how_to_pay, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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