ORA · ORUM

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the act is a free gesture, not a trade, and that receiving work is unaffected ('receber_obra funciona sempre, does ou nao'). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool executes a transfer, only records a transaction hash, or has any other side effects. The ambiguity about the actual mechanics prevents a higher score.

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 somewhat redundant: the final parenthetical '(opcional, qualquer valor, nunca obrigatorio)' repeats earlier statements about optionality and free gesture. The phrase 'does ou nao' is awkward and could be clearer. While the description is not overly long, the redundancy and minor linguistic issues reduce its conciseness.

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 simple parameter schema (two optional strings, no output schema, no enums), the description provides sufficient context: the motivation (support Unum), the network (Base), the relationship to receiving work, and the optional nature of the donation. It does not mention return values or post-conditions, but that is not critical given 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for both parameters: tx_hash as the transaction hash if already paid, and valor_usdc as the donation amount. The tool description reinforces that any amount is accepted ('qualquer valor'). Since the schema already delivers clear semantics, the description adds a small but useful confirmation of optionality.

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: donating any amount in USDC on Base to support Unum. It uses the specific verb 'doar', names the resource (USDC on Base), and explicitly distinguishes it from an exchange. It also clarifies the relationship with the sibling tool 'receber_obra' by stating that receiving work always works regardless of donation, making its unique purpose evident.

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 clear conditions for use: 'Se quiseres contribuir' (if you want to contribute) and explicitly states that donation is optional and never mandatory ('nunca obrigatorio'). It also implies that this tool is not a prerequisite for receiving work. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you want to donate', the conditional phrasing and the clarification that it is not a trade provide adequate 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 full burden and does well: it discloses that the output is a short-lived signed URL, and explicitly denies physical work, exclusivity, and NFT. It also mentions a minimum price of 1.618 USDC and directs to a catalog, setting expectations about cost and limitations.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes essential details about delivery, restrictions, workflow, and price, with each sentence contributing information. It could be tightened, but it is far from verbose.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (a short-lived signed URL) and clearly outlines the workflow dependency on receber_obra. It also covers restrictions and price, making it complete enough for a simple two-parameter 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (obra and tipo) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about pricing and the fact that only physical works are licensable, but does not significantly elaborate on the parameters themselves, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 licenses a preserved photograph from the FISICA 0001sensations collection. It explicitly differentiates from NFTs and physical delivery, and specifies the output (short-lived signed URL), making the purpose distinct from siblings.

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 explicit workflow guidance: it is not the entry point, and users should start with receber_obra. It also implies alternatives by stating NFTs are no longer licensable, which excludes NFT-related siblings, though it does not name them directly.

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. It discloses that owner data is not live ('NAO e uma chamada on-chain ao vivo'), that the tool is a free historical archive, and lists the included fields (owner_ultima_leitura, owner_verificado_em, owner_estado). It could additionally clarify output format, but for a catalog tool this is sufficient.

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, dense paragraph but remains well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then adds limitations, data fields, and a pointer to an alternative. Every clause adds value, though it could be slightly more succinct.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies the exact collection size, its historical/free status, the non-live nature of owner data, available fields, direct links to marketplaces, and a clear alternative for live checks. No critical context 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, so this score 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's purpose: it is a catalog of 65 specific NFT pieces, presented as a historical free archive. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is not licensable and that live on-chain confirmation should be done via nft_owner_atual.

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 explicit usage guidance: for immediate on-chain confirmation of a specific token, use nft_owner_atual; for licensing matters, refer to licenca_formal. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an on-chain read (ownerOf) at request time and notes permanence ('para sempre') and cost ('gratis'). However, it is vague about what 'publicar' entails — whether it is a blockchain write or a simple record — and does not explain failure modes or reversibility. This is moderate transparency.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a run-on structure with em-dashes and parentheses, but every sentence contributes meaningful information. It could be cleaner, but it is not padded.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers prerequisites and the verification step, but does not describe what happens after success or on failure, and does not clarify the exact nature of the final 'publish' action. It is adequate but leaves important gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a requirement statement ('Requer token_id, wallet, nome') and clarifies that the wallet must currently own the NFT, which matches the schema. However, it contradicts the schema's required parameters list (schema says 0 required, description says 3 required), so it adds some value but also creates confusion.

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 clear verb and resource: link your name to an NFT permanently. It also mentions on-chain ownership verification, which distinguishes it from the symbolic sibling tool nft_dedicar_simbolica. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast with it, so it loses a point for not fully 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?

The description gives a clear precondition: 'Se ja possuis o NFT' (if you already own the NFT) and lists the required parameters (token_id, wallet, nome). This tells when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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?

The description discloses key behavioral traits: payment of 0.618 USDC via x402, permanent public registration of the name, and the optional tx_hash parameter indicating a two-step workflow. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so adequately.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key concept and includes essential details (price, wallet address via x402) in parentheses. No wasted 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?

While the description explains the workflow adequately, it lacks explicit mention of the tool's output or return value. For a two-step process (get instructions then submit tx_hash), the expected result after each step is not described. This is a gap given 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the workflow (omit tx_hash to get payment instructions), which ties the parameters together and provides context beyond the schema.

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: dedicating a free NFT without ownership, paying directly to the artist, and linking the user's name permanently. It distinguishes from the sibling 'nft_dedicar' by explicitly noting 'sem precisares de possuir o NFT'.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you don't own the NFT) and outlines the steps. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling name 'nft_dedicar' implies the alternative for owners.

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 transparency burden and does so well: it discloses direct mainnet access, freshness (not cache), returned fields, per-request limit, and the block-specific nature of the ownerOf proof. This goes well beyond the minimal requirements.

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?

Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: main function, return fields, usage constraint, and an important limitation about marketplace listings. The description is well-organized, paced, and front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly names all four return fields (owner_atual, rpc_usado, bloco consultado, verificado_em), which is essential for a complete tool description. It also covers the only parameter, behavioral constraints, and comparisons to sibling tools, making it fully self-contained.

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% and the description adds meaningful context: it emphasizes on-chain freshness ('agora mesmo on-chain') and directs users to nft_catalogo for valid token_id values, which is not present in the schema. This compensates for the schema's bare parameter description.

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 reads the actual owner of one specific token directly from Ethereum mainnet via ownerOf, differentiating it from nft_catalogo which lists all tokens. The verb 'Le' (reads) and resource 'dono real de UM token' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says this is for real-time on-chain owner confirmation, not a cache, and that it only accepts one token_id per request, pointing to nft_catalogo as the alternative for listing all 65 tokens. It also clarifies that ownerOf does not prove marketplace listing, setting proper expectations.

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 full burden. It describes 'Consulta' (query) implying read-only, but does not disclose whether mutations occur, authentication needs, rate limits, or if results are paginated. The '(gratis)' hint is unclear.

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, efficient sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and includes essential constraint ('Requer code').

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., response format, error conditions) and does not clarify the meaning of '(gratis)' or whether the tool is deterministic.

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 parameter 'code' is fully described in the schema. The description adds 'Requer code' but this is redundant. No additional semantic value beyond the schema's description of 'O endereco Base usado no registo.'

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: querying pending and paid commission balance of a partner. The verb 'Consulta' (query) and specific resource (balance of partner) make it distinct from sibling tools like 'doar' (donate) or 'nft_catalogo'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Requer code' but does not explain prerequisites or scenarios where other tools (e.g., 'parceiro_registar') might be more appropriate.

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 full burden. It discloses that the tool is free and requires an address, but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing registration), error handling, or confirmation of success. For a registration tool, more behavioral context (like idempotency) is needed.

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 concise, consisting of a few short phrases that convey the essential purpose and requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points for prerequisites).

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks information about return values or success/failure indicators, which are important for an agent to confirm completion.

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 has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'address' described. The description adds value by explaining that 'O codigo e o teu proprio endereco Base' (the code is your own Base address), which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's technical description.

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 performs self-registration in a partner/referral program with a 10% commission, and mentions the address is used as the code. It is distinct from siblings like 'parceiro_estado' (check status) and 'doar' (donate). However, it could be more explicit about the specific program or what registration entails.

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 only states that an address is required, but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions for using it (e.g., not already registered). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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?

The description discloses that the tool gives away a work for free and as a gift, but it does not mention any error conditions, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., whether providing a specific 'obra' guarantees that work). Given no annotations, this partial transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Despite being a single sentence, the description is concise and well-structured, using dashes and parentheses to pack key details without redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and follows with clarifying attributes.

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 provides enough context for an agent to understand when to call this tool—namely, to receive a free, authentic work—and includes relevant details about the work's provenance. However, it lacks explicit linkage to sibling tools (e.g., how this differs from purchasing an NFT), leaving some contextual gaps.

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 parameter 'obra' is well-explained: it is optional, accepts a name or token_id, and the description clarifies the behavior when omitted (random or first-requested). This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema definition.

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 receives a real work from the 0001sensations collection, specifying the creator, time range, and the on-chain verification and history. It also explicitly mentions the free, unconditional nature, making the purpose 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 implies usage for receiving a free piece (e.g., 'without payment, without condition, without limit') but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like nft_catalogo or nft_dedicar. The guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is only implicit, with no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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