OpenGit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields and notes that the payout address is conditional on the repo being claimed from opengit.json, but it does not describe read-only behavior, error handling for missing repos, or authentication 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?

The definition is a single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the most useful return-value context. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 partially compensates for the absence of an output schema by listing returned fields and the conditional payout source. However, with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no explanation of failure behavior, an agent still lacks important context for invoking it confidently.

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 and the description does not explain the owner and name parameters at all. It implies that a repo is identified somehow, but adds no format, casing, or uniqueness guidance beyond what the parameter names suggest.

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 identifies the resource as a single repo and enumerates the details returned, including description, interfaces, stars, score, links, and conditional payout address. It distinguishes the one-repo scope from list/search-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when details for one known repo are needed. There is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus search_repos, trending, or other siblings, nor are prerequisites such as needing owner and name stated.

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 provided, the description carries full burden but discloses only the returned content. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or if results are paginated, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core content. The example is helpful and not excessive, though the phrasing as a sentence fragment slightly reduces crispness.

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 one optional parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description should explain the parameter's effect and basic behavior. It does neither, so an agent lacks essential information to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description doesn't mention the `ecosystem` parameter at all. The enum values are visible in the schema, but the description adds no meaning about what the parameter does or how it filters results.

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 states the tool surfaces featured builders, their chains, and repos, with a concrete example (Shaw, creator of elizaOS). It distinguishes the resource from siblings like repos or categories, though it lacks a clear action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as search_repos or list_categories. The description only says what is returned, not the conditions that make it the right choice.

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 doesn't say whether the call is read-only, whether the list is paginated, whether it requires authentication, or how large the result typically is. Its only behavioral disclosure is the return payload ('categories ... with repo counts'), which is useful but thin.

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 filler. It is arguably too short rather than too long, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

This is a simple zero-param read with no output schema, so the description should at least clarify the return shape. It does so minimally ('categories ... with repo counts') but says nothing about ordering, completeness, or what a 'category' is — enough to call correctly, not enough to use the output confidently.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document; per the baseline for zero-param tools this lands at 4. No misleading parameter references appear in the description.

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 the resource (categories in the OpenGit index) and its payload (repo counts), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like trending, search_repos, and get_repo. It lacks an explicit verb, but for a zero-parameter enumeration tool that omission is negligible.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The description implies it's a discovery/index-enumeration call, but nothing tells the agent whether this is a first step before search_repos or get_repo.

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 disclosure burden; it does state the returned content (ecosystem names with repo counts), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the index is static, leaving real behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the concrete examples land early. It could be marginally sharper with an explicit verb, but nothing is wasted.

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 parameterless read-only listing with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return content and examples, which covers the main informational need. Only the absence of ordering/completeness details keeps it short of full marks.

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 the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to explain and none are needed.

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 the resource (chains/platforms in the OpenGit index) and gives concrete examples (Solana, Base, Robinhood Chain) plus the returned metric (repo counts), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_builders and list_categories. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name to convey the listing action, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus search_repos, trending, or list_categories, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. A reader can infer it enumerates ecosystems, but nothing in the text routes the agent between this and its 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are ranked by match then OG score, which is useful, but omits whether the operation is read-only (implied by search), what 'OG score' means, and any rate-limit or result-format details.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then return behavior. No wasted words, but it is extremely terse; a little more context could improve clarity without violating conciseness.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only covers purpose and ranking. It does not explain 'agent-ready', 'OG score', or the shape of returned repo objects, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 67% — query, claimed, ecosystem, and interface are documented in the schema, while limit and category are not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (Find) and resource (open source repos) with a scope qualifier (agent-ready, for a task). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_repo (single repo) and trending (popularity-based) by implying task-oriented search, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a task' and the ranking promise, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_repo, trending, or list_categories. No exclusions or alternative routing 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 real work: it discloses that the call returns an HTTP 402 payment challenge, which chains/assets are offered, that funds route directly to the maintainer's address from opengit.json, and that OpenGit takes no fee. It leaves gaps on failure behavior for unclaimed repos, link expiry, and whether any auth is required.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by invocation mechanics, fund routing, and fee disclosure in four tight sentences. No sentence is filler, and nothing important is buried.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return (a 402 challenge with payment options) and money flow. It is slightly incomplete on error cases (unclaimed repo, unsupported network) and on what the agent should do with the link once obtained.

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 50%; the description compensates by mapping the network enum values to their settlement assets (Robinhood Chain/USDG, Base/USDC, Solana/USDC), which the schema does not convey. owner and name are covered only indirectly via 'claimed repo' and 'repo's opengit.json', and amount_usd is left entirely to the schema's min/max/default.

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 ('Get an x402 link that tips a claimed repo's maintainer') and the effect ('payment goes straight to the maintainer's address'). This is unmistakably different from the sibling read tools (get_repo, search_repos, trending), so an agent can route to it without inspecting a 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?

'Use it to tip the open source tools you rely on' plus 'Request the link with any x402 client or wallet' gives clear invocation context, and 'claimed repo' implicitly excludes unclaimed repos. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating explicitly what to do when the repo is unclaimed or when the user wants to merely inspect rather than pay.

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 does disclose the ranking basis (stars gained this week), implying a read-only ranked list, but says nothing about refresh cadence, stability of the ranking, paging, or whether results are deduplicated.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the metric, with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema.

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 output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained for a two-parameter discovery tool: result shape, cap/default behavior, and the ecosystem filter's meaning and valid values are all unaddressed.

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 does not: neither 'limit' (1-50, default 10) nor 'ecosystem' (enum of solana/base/robinhood-chain) is mentioned. The only clue is that the window is fixed at 'this week', which implies no time parameter exists.

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?

Specific: names the resource (repos in the index), the ranking metric (stars gained), and the time window (this week). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_repos, but sibling differentiation is by inference rather than stated.

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 indication of when to use this versus search_repos or get_repo, no exclusions, no prerequisites. The agent is left to infer that this is the discovery/'what's hot' entry point from the description alone.

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