Agent Arena Registry

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully compensates by listing specific return fields (name, description, endpoints, reputation, reviews, cross-chain presence) and noting 'Free endpoint' (cost/permission status). It does not disclose rate limits, caching, or error behaviors (e.g., not found).

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 efficient, front-loaded sentences: (1) core purpose, (2) return values (critical given no output schema), (3) cost behavior. No redundancy or waste; each sentence provides unique value not duplicated in structured fields.

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 simple 2-parameter input structure but complete absence of output schema and annotations, the description provides adequate completeness by enumerating return fields and cost. Could be improved by mentioning error handling (e.g., agent not found) or required prerequisites.

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%, documenting both chainId and agentId with specific formats (e.g., 'ERC-8004 registry'). The description reinforces the 'on-chain ID' concept but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or usage examples beyond the schema's scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Retrieve' + resource 'full profile' + scope 'specific agent by their on-chain ID'. The phrase 'specific agent by ID' clearly distinguishes this from sibling search_agents (which would find agents without exact IDs) and register_agent (which creates).

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 'specific agent by their on-chain ID' implies this requires an exact identifier, suggesting when to use it (when you know the ID). However, it lacks explicit guidance contrasting with search_agents for discovery scenarios or stating what to do if the ID is unknown.

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. It discloses key behavioral traits: minting an NFT, indexing for discovery, and requiring payment. It does not mention reversibility or update capabilities, but the outlined behaviors are sufficient for a registration 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Every word adds value. The critical information (action, effect, payment) 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?

The tool has 9 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations. The description is terse and does not explain return values, error conditions, or post-registration steps. Given the complexity, more detail would be beneficial.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema; it only provides context for the payment requirement. The schema already details each parameter, so the description adds minimal 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 action ('Register a new AI agent'), the specific resource ('Base blockchain ERC-8004 registry'), and the resulting effects ('Mints an on-chain identity NFT and indexes the agent for discovery'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent_profile (read) and search_agents (query).

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 mentions the payment requirement ($0.05 USDC via x402 on Base mainnet), which is a critical usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the context of registration vs. reading/searching is implicit.

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 for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the payment requirement and chain, which are critical for the agent to know. It also states the return type (list of agents with specific fields). However, it does not mention rate limits, order of results, or any side effects, but the absence of destructive actions makes this acceptable.

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 consists of two sentences, both essential. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds critical payment information. No unnecessary words, and the information 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 no output schema and 6 parameters, the description provides a basic understanding but lacks details on pagination (though limit is present), ordering, or how filters combine. The return structure is only briefly mentioned. For a search tool, more completeness on result behavior would be beneficial.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for parameters, only mentioning that search is by 'capability, name, or description', which aligns with the 'query' parameter. There is no additional context for other parameters like 'acta', 'oasf', or 'chain'.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'Agent Arena registry', and the methods of searching (by capability, name, or description). It also specifies what is returned (endpoints, pricing, reputation scores). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_agent_profile and register_agent.

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 mentions a payment requirement ($0.005 USDC via x402 on Base mainnet), which is a usage consideration. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use get_agent_profile for a specific agent or register_agent for adding a new agent. The usage is implied but not fully stated.

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