acdoyle

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It meaningfully discloses that the call is metered in USDC credit, requires an api_key, routes to one of three personas, and returns a confident non-hedged answer. It also flags that Watson is simulated.

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 front-loaded sentences: the action is stated first, followed by routing behavior and billing prerequisites. 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?

Given no output schema and no sibling tools, the description covers the essential operational context: task format, routing behavior, reply style, credit metering, and how to obtain an api_key. It does not describe failure modes or credit-exhaustion behavior, but the core invocation context is 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 schema documents both parameters, so coverage is 100%. The description adds modest context — plain-language tasks, router-based persona selection, and api_key used for authorization/metering — but does not significantly deepen the schema's parameter documentation.

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 this tool sends a task to acdoyle, an agent-to-agent gateway, and describes the routing to three specialist personas. It is specific about the action and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (none are listed).

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 when to use it — when you need a confident answer from a specialist persona — and names the three personas. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or alternative selection criteria.

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 so: it discloses that the request may return an HTTP 402 payment challenge instead of a result, that the tool surfaces this as isError: true with challenge details, that the MCP client or calling agent must sign and attach the payment header and retry, and that it is Base Sepolia testnet only. This is unusually rich operational context for a mutation-style call.

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 passage is front-loaded with purpose and persona inventory before the payment mechanics, and each sentence contributes new information. It is somewhat dense and run-on, but there is little waste.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: the input shape, the routing behavior, the expected success result, and the 402 failure/retry flow.

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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents 'task' fully. The description adds only the marginal note that the router selects the specialist automatically, which does not extend semantics 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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Send a task to acdoyle, an agent-to-agent gateway') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling acdoyle_dispatch via 'no pre-issued api_key required'. An agent can identify the tool and its scope without opening the 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 description clearly frames the selection condition — no pre-issued api_key, gated by x402 instead of a metered key — which is exactly the axis that distinguishes it from the sibling acdoyle_dispatch. It does not explicitly name the sibling as the alternative, so an agent must infer the 'if you have an api_key, use the other one' case.

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