vouch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'Free' and that reports improve the reputation graph, but it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether reports are immediately effective, can be reversed, require authentication, or have rate limits. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's side effects.

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 one concise sentence plus the word 'Free.' It is front-loaded with the main action and is efficiently written with no wasted words. However, it could include more detail without becoming 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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and effect (improving reputation graph). However, it lacks explanation of the 'reason' parameter and does not describe the return value or confirmation. Given the tool's simplicity, this is minimally adequate but not 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'target' as 'host' and 'kind' as 'flag' or 'vouch', but it completely omits the optional 'reason' parameter. The description adds some meaning over the raw schema but fails to document all parameters.

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 action ('Report a host as a scam/bad actor or as trustworthy') and the resource ('host'), using specific verbs and examples. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'vouch_score' by focusing on submitting reports rather than querying scores.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'vouch_score'. It implies the purpose (improving reputation graph) but lacks conditions, exclusions, or comparative context needed for an agent to decide between the two related tools.

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 the return format (0-100 score and risk band), detection methods (threat feeds, domain risk heuristics, community graph), and distinguishes between the free and paid versions. It does not mention any destructive behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs, but for a read-only scoring tool this is acceptable. The description is transparent about the tool's capabilities 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 two sentences, each sentence serves a distinct purpose: the first states the core function with output details, and the second provides usage context and an alternative. It is highly concise with no redundant information, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary information: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and mentions the paid alternative for extended capabilities. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 full description coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'target', describing it as 'Counterparty URL or hostname.' The description adds no extra semantics beyond this, simply repeating 'Given a URL or host.' Since the schema already fulfills the parameter documentation, the description adds marginal 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's purpose: checking if a counterparty is safe to pay before sending money. It specifies the verb (check), resource (counterparty safety), and output (0-100 trust score and risk band). It differentiates from the paid POST endpoint (likely the sibling tool vouch_report) by noting it's free and only provides a score, while the paid version gives full reasons and attestations.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Call this before paying any merchant, API, agent, or x402 resource.' It also mentions an alternative for more detailed information (the paid POST endpoint). While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is strong and provides context.

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