omega-router

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether the snapshot is cached or live, how results are ordered or paginated, or what happens when no snapshot exists. "List" implies a read, but nothing is disclosed beyond that.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine 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?

With no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description should define what a "capability" entry is and what the agent gets back. Neither is addressed, leaving the return content and the meaning of "current snapshot" unexplained.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the empty 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 has a verb ("List") and a resource ("capabilities"), so the action is identifiable. However, the core terms are undefined domain jargon: what a "capability" is and what constitutes the "current snapshot" are left entirely to inference. The sibling route_service is unrelated, so no differentiation is needed, but the purpose remains vague.

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 call this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The phrase "in the current snapshot" weakly implies reading live/current state, but this is inference rather than stated 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose read-only operation, absence of purchase/routing/payment/downstream execution, and a NO_RECOMMENDATION fallback for insufficient evidence. It omits authentication requirements, rate limits, latency, and what a successful response contains.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the read-only constraint and behavioral limits. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter query tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what each capability returns or how to interpret NO_RECOMMENDATION, leaving essential call-time context 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required 'capability' parameter, and the description never mentions or explains it. The enum values are the only parameter guidance, so the description fails to compensate 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('query' + 'OMEGA evidence') and rules out transaction/routing behavior, which distinguishes it from route_service. However, 'OMEGA evidence' is not defined, and the siblings are not named, so the agent must infer the tool's actual domain from the capability enum.

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 negative guidance ('No purchase, routing, payment, or downstream execution') but does not state when the tool should be used instead of market_capabilities or route_service. No prerequisites or alternative-selection conditions are provided.

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 and does well: it states the tool is free and read-only, that it makes no payment, and explicitly bounds its claim ('does not certify functional correctness'). It still omits failure behavior when no service matches and any rate/caching characteristics.

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 the core purpose and the no-payment guarantee front-loaded; every clause carries information and nothing is 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does sketch the return contents (mapped stable-asset price plus public usage evidence) and disclaims correctness. However, it leaves mode semantics, price-filter behavior, and the no-match case unexplained for a 3-parameter selection 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not: it never explains mode values (CHEAPEST/BALANCED/PROVEN/STRICT) or how max_price_usdc constrains selection. Only the enum labels themselves hint at meaning, leaving the key behavioral parameter undocumented.

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 names a specific verb+resource: a 'selector for supported x402 services,' and clarifies it returns price and usage evidence rather than executing anything. It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the siblings market_capabilities or omega_evidence, so the agent must infer the routing role from the name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives. 'Makes no payment' hints that this is a pre-payment discovery step, but that is inference rather than stated guidance, and nothing tells the agent how the four modes affect selection.

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