FluxProof

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

There are no annotations describing side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The phrase 'change receipt' hints that running the monitor may produce changes, but the tool's own effects on system state are not disclosed. The description does not state whether the operation is safe, reversible, or read-only.

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 sentence and is front-loaded with the primary action. It contains no redundant filler, though the phrase 'source- and hash-bound change receipt' adds jargon that may reduce immediate clarity. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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 lacks an output schema, parameter descriptions, and any mention of error conditions or return format. The description's promise of a 'change receipt' is not elaborated, so the agent cannot predict the exact response or failure modes. This is not enough context for reliable invocation.

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 no descriptions for api_key or monitor_id, and the tool description only mentions 'a monitor' without explaining either parameter. There is no information about required formats, value constraints, or how the api_key should be supplied. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify parameter semantics.

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 action ('run a monitor now') and the return value ('a source- and hash-bound change receipt'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on immediate execution rather than creation, listing, offering, or preflight. Some jargon like 'source- and hash-bound' slightly obscures the purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as fluxproof_create_monitor or fluxproof_list_changes. It does not explain whether this is for on-demand execution only or how it relates to preflight. The agent must infer the intended 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 must carry the full behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'create a monitor using a buyer-owned API key.' It does not explain side effects, return values, or preconditions.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 lacks essential details about the monitor's purpose, parameter meanings, expected outputs, and failure modes, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 lists six parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description only references the api_key parameter. No meaning is added for url, label, watch_terms, webhook_url, or interval_minutes.

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 action (create) and object (monitor), and mentions the buyer-owned API key context. It is distinct from sibling tools like check_now and list_changes which perform different actions.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional and lacks any situational context or explicit guidance.

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 burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not explicitly state whether it is side-effect-free, what authentication is required, or any potential rate limits or errors.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words or redundant information. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 lack of parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotation context, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand how to call the tool, what to expect in return, or how to handle edge cases. It provides only a high-level summary.

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 no descriptions for the three parameters (limit, api_key, monitor_id), and the tool description only implicitly references monitor_id ('for a monitor'). None of the parameters' meaning, constraints, or formatting are explained, leaving the agent without essential usage details.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('evidence receipts'), and the scope ('for a monitor'), making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the action and resource are distinct enough to infer its role.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., check_now, create_monitor, offer, preflight). There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'without charging,' which hints at a non-billing operation but does not clarify if it's read-only, what side effects exist, or what the response structure is. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It contains no redundant words and is easy to scan. It earns a high score for economy.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the returned boundaries and purchase routes look like or what they represent. It does not, leaving an agent uncertain about how to use the result. The tool is simple (no params) but the description still feels incomplete.

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 schema is empty and the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and adds no param information, which is appropriate. There is no gap to compensate for.

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 'Return' and names a resource ('free and paid boundaries and purchase routes'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'boundaries' and 'purchase routes' are ambiguous and the description does not differentiate it from siblings like fluxproof_preflight or fluxproof_check_now. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks precision.

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 no indication of when to use this tool versus any of its siblings. There is no mention of context, preconditions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to guess. Even a simple tool should state whether it's for pricing info, plan limits, or purchase flows.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It transparently lists what is returned and explicitly states that page content is not fetched and no payment is made. However, it does not mention potential side effects, errors, or network behavior, so a small gap remains.

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 concise sentence that packs the action, output list, and constraints without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately comprehensible.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (fetchability, size, final URL, title, content hash). It omits details about error conditions or status codes, but for a simple preflight tool the listed information is reasonably 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?

The only parameter, 'url', has no schema description, but the tool description clarifies that it must be a 'public URL'. This provides the essential meaning and constraint for the parameter, though it lacks additional details like expected URL formats or examples.

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 specifies the action ('Fetch a public URL') and the exact outputs returned (fetchability, size, final URL, title, content hash). It also states constraints ('without page content or payment'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from typical fetch or monitoring 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like check_now, create_monitor, or offer. It implies preflight usage by listing fetchability and excluding payment, but it lacks direct guidance on the appropriate context or relative ordering.

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