Attester Oracle

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent. Description adds 'deterministic', 'signed', 'typosquat-adjacency flags on misses', enhancing transparency. Also discloses rate limit sharing.

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?

Front-loaded with core purpose in first sentence, then additional context on rate limits and alternatives. No wasted words, highly concise.

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 missing parameter details, the description covers purpose, usage, constraints, and alternatives. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%; description minimally adds by mentioning 'PyPI or npm' for ecosystem and 'package name' for name, but does not explain parameter types or required status 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Does this PyPI or npm package name really exist?' Distinguishes from siblings (symbol_exists, symbol_signature, version_diff) by focusing on package existence.

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 states when to use (checking package existence), includes rate limits (25 calls/day per IP, shared with /demo/v1/* routes), and provides alternative for higher volume (paid HTTP routes).

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 provide read-only and idempotent hints. Description adds behavior like 'closest-match suggestions' and rate limits, surpassing annotation 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?

Two sentences plus rate limit info, front-loaded with core purpose. 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?

Covers existence check, suggestions, and usage limits, but lacks parameter details, making it incomplete for a 4-param tool with no schema description.

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%, yet description only indirectly mentions symbol and ecosystem; 'package' and 'version' are not described. Insufficient detail for parameter meaning.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks existence of a symbol in a package, with closest-match suggestions. Distinguishes from sibling tools like attester_package_exists.

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?

Provides rate limit and alternative paid routes, giving context on when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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 cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds critical behavioral context: free usage limits (25 calls/day, IP-based, reset UTC), shared with demo routes, and paid upgrade path. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences efficiently convey purpose and rate limits. Front-loaded with core functionality. Could reorder or combine ideas, but 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?

Given 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description omits parameter explanations and error/edge-case behavior. Output schema might cover return structure, but description lacks completeness for a standalone guide.

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. It only mentions 'resolved at a pinned version when given' for the version parameter, but fails to explain ecosystem (pypi/npm), package, or symbol parameters. Minimal added value.

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 returns 'exact signature, structured params, docstring summary, and deprecation status' for a symbol, which is a specific resource and action. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (existence checks, diffs) by focusing on detailed signature retrieval.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like attester_symbol_exists or attester_version_diff. The description only mentions rate limits and paid alternatives, not 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying rate limits and classification behavior (breaking/additive/neutral). No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences: the first covers purpose and outputs, the second covers rate limits and alternatives. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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 covers purpose, outputs, rate limits, and alternative paid routes. An output schema is present, so return values are not needed in the description. Missing parameter details slightly reduce completeness for a 4-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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions 'two pinned versions' but does not detail the four required parameters (package, ecosystem, from_version, to_version) or their constraints, leaving the agent to rely solely on 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 begins with 'Symbol-level diff between two pinned versions of one package,' providing a specific verb and resource. It lists exact outputs (added, removed, changed signatures, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that check existence or signatures.

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 includes rate limits ('25 calls/day per client IP') and mentions paid alternatives for higher volume, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools, though the difference is implied.

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