Whenere Trivia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it states the price ($0.01 USDC), the network (Base), the payment scheme (x402, exact), and precisely what happens on an unpaid call versus a paid retry. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not get from 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the price/network detail is front-loaded. It is compact and every sentence contributes, though the payment mechanics make it a bit content-heavy for a single-purpose 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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return content (the day's question without its answer) and the full payment/retry flow, which is the key complexity for this tool. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only the exact response envelope left unspecified.

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% for the single 'locale' parameter, so the schema already documents allowed values ('en' or 'es'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 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 verb+resource: it returns today's history trivia question ('¿en qué año ocurrió esto?') without the answer, which cleanly separates it from get_today_trivia_solved. It does not explicitly name the siblings, so the differentiation is implied by 'sin la respuesta' 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?

It gives an explicit invocation path (no payment returns the payment challenge, retry with the signed payment in _meta['x402/payment']), which is useful operational guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over get_today_trivia_preview or get_today_trivia_solved, leaving that selection 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 does disclose meaningful behavior: it is free and deliberately excludes the question, answer, and year. This tells the agent exactly what data it will and won't receive, though auth requirements or rate limits are not mentioned.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the key attribute ('Gratis') and then the content boundaries. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

There is no output schema, so listing the returned metadata fields (título, categoría, dificultad, fecha) usefully compensates. For a simple 1-parameter read tool this is essentially complete, missing only the explicit alternative for routing.

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 single locale parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with its 'en'/'es' values, so the description need not elaborate. It adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 the resource (today's trivia) and enumerates what it returns (título, categoría, dificultad, fecha), and distinguishes itself from the fuller sibling by exclusion (sin pregunta, sin respuesta). An agent can tell it apart from get_today_trivia, though it never names the sibling.

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?

'Gratis' implies a use condition (pick this when you don't need the question/answer, or when cost matters), suggesting the full-trivia sibling is the alternative. However, no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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 delivers: exact cost ($0.03 USDC on Base), payment protocol (x402, scheme exact), the failure mode when unpaid, and the precise retry path. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from 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?

Everything is packed into two compact sentences with no filler, though it leads with price rather than the tool's core purpose, which is arguably the more important front-loaded 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?

For a single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is returned (answer year plus explanation) and the payment mechanics. It is essentially complete for correct invocation, falling just short of explaining the response shape in detail.

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 single 'locale' parameter and its 'en'/'es' values are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it returns today's complete trivia including the answer (year) and explanation. That clearly distinguishes it in substance from a preview variant, though it never names the siblings get_today_trivia or get_today_trivia_preview to make the routing explicit.

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?

It gives concrete operational guidance for the payment flow (unpaid calls return a payment challenge, retry with a signed payment in _meta['x402/payment']). However, it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to its two sibling trivia tools.

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