Criptograma

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact price and currency ($0.01 USDC on Base, x402 scheme exact), the no-payment challenge response, and the retry mechanism. It doesn't describe error handling for the crossword enum case or locale fallback, but the payment behavior is unusually well specified.

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 dense sentences with the payment mechanics front-loaded ahead of the content description. Every clause earns its place, though the mixed pricing/x402 jargon makes it slightly harder to parse on first read.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: cost, payment handshake, retry path, and the shape of the returned content. Minor omissions such as failure modes beyond not_available_yet keep it short of a 5.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the enum restriction on 'type' and the allowed locale values. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific resource and scope: the day's playable acrostic, with 'definiciones + referencias de grilla, respuestas removidas' clarifying what the caller receives. The '(jugable)' qualifier and 'respuestas removidas' implicitly differentiate it from the solved sibling, but that alternative is never named 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: without payment it returns a payment challenge, and the caller should retry with a signed payment in _meta["x402/payment"]. It lacks an explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_today_acrostic_solved, but the payment flow guidance is strong and actionable.

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 well: it discloses the price ($0.03 USDC on Base), the x402 exact scheme, and the two-phase payment behavior (challenge then signed retry). It does not describe pagination or error behavior beyond that, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences that front-load the price and then describe the payload and payment flow. Every clause earns its place, though the payment sentence is slightly run-on.

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 payment-gated tool with no output schema, the description names the returned content (answer phrase, words, letters, link) and explains the payment retry mechanism. Locale behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage.

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 100%, so both parameters (locale, type) are already documented with the enum caveat for 'crossword'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 resource and scope: the complete/solved acrostic of the day with the answer phrase, words, letters, and a web link. The 'completo/resuelto' framing distinguishes it from the sibling get_today_acrostic, though it never names that sibling 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?

Gives clear operating context: without payment it returns a payment challenge, and the agent should retry with a signed payment in _meta["x402/payment"]. It does not explicitly compare against get_today_acrostic or get_today_puzzle_preview, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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 adds some useful behavioral detail: it is free, returns metadata only, and excludes hints, answers, id, and link. However, it does not state read-only safety, auth requirements, rate limits, or the crossword error behavior documented in the schema.

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 tightly packed sentence that front-loads the key scope claim ('Solo metadatos del acróstico de hoy') and then lists exclusions. Every phrase earns its place with zero filler.

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 metadata preview tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently lists the returned fields and exclusions. It leaves out when-to-use guidance and cross-parameter error behavior, but those gaps are minor given the tool's low complexity and the schema's parameter coverage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the enum and the crossword error. The description does not add parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 the tool returns only metadata for today's acrostic (title, level, counts, rarity) and explicitly excludes hints, answers, id, and link. This distinguishes it by content scope from likely fuller or solved sibling tools, though it does not name them directly.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are named. The phrase 'Solo metadatos... sin pistas, sin respuestas' implies the tool is appropriate when only preview metadata is needed, but the agent must infer that from the scope.

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