Quay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful context by stating the lookup uses 'public data', implying no auth and a read-only operation, but it never explicitly declares read-only behavior, latency, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 zero filler. It leads with the verb and resource and then lists the checked attributes compactly.

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 one-parameter read lookup with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned attributes (activation, balances, contract flag, blacklist bit), which compensates for the missing output schema. The main remaining gap is parameter format expectations.

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%, so the schema documents nothing about the single parameter. The description adds domain context by identifying the input as a TRON address, but gives no format expectations (base58 vs hex), validation rules, or error handling for a malformed address.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Check') plus a specific resource ('a TRON address') and enumerates the checks performed (activation, balances, contract flag, USDT blacklist bit). This clearly differentiates it from quay_fee_advisor and quay_payment_verifier, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not state when an agent should reach for this tool versus quay_fee_advisor or quay_payment_verifier, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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. 'Estimate' and 'note' imply a read-only advisory call with no state change, and it enumerates what the result contains, but it says nothing about whether the estimate is a network simulation, whether it needs the sender to hold balance, or how volatile/stale the numbers are.

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 naming the action and every output, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly lists the returned fields (energy, bandwidth, burn cost, stake-or-burn note), which is its main contribution. However, 'stake-or-burn note' is opaque and there is no guidance on interpretation or the conditions under which the estimate is valid, leaving a moderate gap for a 4-parameter advisory 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 coverage is 75%: 'to', 'from', and 'amount' (with its default) are documented in the schema. The description's 'TRX or USDT' adds meaning to the undocumented 'token' enum values, but contributes nothing beyond that. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does most of the work.

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 verb ('Estimate') plus the exact outputs (energy, bandwidth, burn cost, stake-or-burn note) and the resource scope (TRX or USDT transfer). It is clearly distinguishable from quay_address_check and quay_payment_verifier, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'for a TRX or USDT transfer' implies the pre-transfer context in which an agent would call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it partially meets it by disclosing the verification outputs: amount, sender, timestamp, confirmations, and mismatch flags. It still omits whether the call is read-only, whether it requires auth or a known network, how mismatches are surfaced, and any rate limits or failure modes.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the validated fields. There is 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?

The description conveys the core purpose and return fields, which helps given the absence of an output schema. But with five parameters at 0% coverage, no annotations, and no required-parameter guidance, an agent lacks enough to call it correctly across edge cases.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It only maps loosely to 'amount' and implies a sender check, leaving txId, address, and network unexplained; the token enum is self-documenting but nothing clarifies format expectations for the rest.

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 specific verb (confirm) and resource (TRX or USDT arrival), plus the fields it validates, so the agent knows it verifies incoming payments. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like quay_address_check or quay_fee_advisor, which it could plausibly overlap with.

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 never says when to use this tool versus the two siblings, what conditions trigger a verification, or any prerequisites such as a known transaction id. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the verb 'confirm'.

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