Living Stack Agent Commerce

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable practical guarantee: 'This tool never charges.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent decide to invoke it safely.

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 short sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the safety-relevant 'never charges' note following. No redundant or filler content.

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, non-destructive tool with strong annotations, the description covers what is returned and a key behavioral guarantee. There is no output schema, but the description names the two main outputs, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 that the tool returns current Living Stack purchase boundaries and the shortest buyer handoff, which distinguishes it from the sibling purchase-preparation tools. However, the exact meaning of 'purchase boundaries' is domain-specific and could be clearer.

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: the tool is informational ('never charges') and returns boundaries/handoff details, so an agent would call it before preparing a purchase. It does not explicitly name siblings as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context provides reasonable 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that the tool never charges and returns an MPP-enabled HTTP request, which clarifies that the tool does not execute the purchase.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that each add value: the first states the core behavior, and the second adds the critical financial safety clarification. There is 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?

The return value is partially described as an exact MPP-enabled HTTP request, but the input 'request' is a black box with no schema descriptions, examples, or hints. With no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description is not sufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.

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 only parameter 'request' is an opaque object with additionalProperties. The description provides no field-level meaning, examples, or constraints, and merely reuses the word 'request' without explaining what the object should contain.

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 behavior: validates the request and returns an exact MPP-enabled HTTP request, while also clarifying that it never charges. The resource is implied by the title 'claim-audit purchase,' making the purpose clear even though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus livingstack.prepare_team_local_purchase or livingstack.agent_offers. The description implies it is for preparing a signed request rather than executing it, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note 'This tool never charges,' which goes beyond the annotations, but it does not describe the returned route or token structure or any other behavioral details.

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 purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the safety-relevant 'never charges' note without wasting 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 description adequately states what the tool does and that it does not charge, but there is no output schema and no elaboration on what an MPP purchase route or protected recovery token means for the caller. Given the single nested parameter and annotation coverage, this is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain the request object or its subfields. The phrase 'frozen release request' gives some semantic context, but the agent must rely entirely on the schema constraints without additional guidance on how to construct the request.

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 a frozen release request and returns an MPP purchase route plus protected recovery token, with an explicit 'never charges' note. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like prepare_claim_audit_purchase.

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 use when a frozen release request exists but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion cases. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so an agent has to infer the appropriate context from the title and description.

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