PAID ($0.50 after free tier): compute the workload footprint, then RETIRE the required verified offset mass through the fleet's own clearinghouse — Verra provenance rides into the certificate; no retirement, no certificate (GR3, fail-closed). Returns a machine-verifiable certificate anyone can check for free (GR4).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workload | Yes | ||
| request_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses cost ($0.50 after free tier), retirement requirement, provenance, fail-closed behavior (GR3), and that the certificate is machine-verifiable and free to check (GR4).
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 sentence, front-loading the paid aspect. It is concise but uses jargon (Verra, GR3, GR4) that may reduce clarity for some agents.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the two parameters (especially the complex 'workload' object) and lacks details on free tier limits or cost specifics. For a tool with 0% schema coverage, more context is needed.
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% and the description does not explain the parameters. 'workload' is mentioned as input but no structure or example is given; 'request_id' is not mentioned at all.
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 computes workload footprint, retires offset mass, and returns a certificate. It distinguishes from siblings like 'green_route' and 'list_green_certificates' by focusing on certification.
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 mentions it's paid after free tier and includes conditions like 'no retirement, no certificate' and references GR3/GR4. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like 'quote_footprint'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: quote_footprint computes footprint, green_route ranks backends, certify produces certificates, list_green_certificates lists them, verify_green_certificate verifies them, and describe_agent describes the agent. No overlap.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (describe_agent, list_green_certificates, quote_footprint, verify_green_certificate), but 'certify' is a single verb and 'green_route' is a noun phrase, causing minor inconsistency.
With 6 tools covering footprint calculation, routing, certification, listing, and verification, the count is well-scoped for a carbon-aware routing service. No tool feels redundant or missing.
The tool set covers the full workflow: estimate footprint (quote_footprint), choose green backend (green_route), certify offsets (certify), list certificates (list_green_certificates), and verify certificates (verify_green_certificate). The describe_agent tool adds metadata. No obvious gaps.