agiscorecard-web3-calls

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

Annotations already mark readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful operational facts: local decoding, no wallet connection, no contract-safety evaluation, no application persistence, and remote processing. These constraints materially affect invocation expectations and go well beyond annotation coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by exclusions and input-retrieval instructions. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, input retrieval, and persistence behavior. The only notable gap is that ERC-1155 appears in the enum but the description only illustrates the ERC-20 vs ERC-721 distinction.

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 covers all seven parameters with descriptions and an enum, so the description does not need to repeat per-parameter details. The text adds conceptual orientation around recipient/spender and atomic amount but no concrete parameter-level guidance beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('decodes') and object ('supported token-call shapes'), and frames the comparison against recipient, spender, and atomic amount. The negative capability list separates it from safety and simulation tools. Clear and differentiating.

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?

Names fetch and read as the way to retrieve calls and exact inputs, providing an explicit path to invocation. It also lists exclusions such as no chain simulation and no safety verdict, so an agent knows when not to use it. It does not name specific alternative tools for those excluded jobs.

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/destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the payload contents (methodology, limits, official source links, fictional worked examples), asserting 'no user records', and prescribing a citation action on the canonical URL — useful context beyond annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and ID provenance, followed by content summary and a concrete instruction ('Cite the returned canonical URL'). No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still qualifies contents; annotations cover the safety profile; the parameter's origin is stated. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the odd single-value enum left unaddressed.

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 carry the weight for the single 'id' parameter. It partially compensates by stating the ID comes from 'search', but says nothing about the lone enum value 'calls' or the ID's expected format.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('public tool reference by the ID returned from search'), and the provenance phrase ties it to the sibling 'search' rather than leaving it ambiguous. An agent can distinguish it from search and decode_token_call without opening any schema.

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 clause 'by the ID returned from search' establishes the prerequisite and sequencing (call search first), which is clear context for when this tool is used. It stops short of any explicit when-not or a named alternative, so it does not reach the top band.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: bilingual (English and Chinese) name support, public scope, and the empty-query listing behavior. These details go beyond what annotations or schema provide without contradicting them.

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 clean sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the supporting usage details are kept minimal and relevant.

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 single-parameter search tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete: it defines the search scope, supported query forms, and the empty-query behavior. No essential information for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the query parameter. It clarifies that queries are names, that English and Chinese are accepted, and that an empty query has special meaning. It does not fully specify matching behavior (e.g., exact vs partial), but it compensates well for the schema gap.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('this server’s public AI/Web3 tools and citation pages'), making the tool’s function immediately clear. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on checking permissions, comparing costs, or reading profiles rather than searching a corpus. The title and description align well.

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 indicates when to use the tool: when searching for AI/Web3 tools or citation pages on this server. The note about empty query listing available worksheets provides a concrete usage scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it misses the top score.

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