dns-of-money

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavior: it is read-only, never reserves or registers, and is public. No contradictions.

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 concise, two sentences plus an example, with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool (1 param, no output schema), the description is nearly complete, covering purpose, return values, side effects, and authentication. Minor omission: no mention of synchronous vs async.

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% with a description for the single parameter. The description adds context about return states and example, but does not significantly extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool checks if a pay alias can be claimed, specifies the three possible return states, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_alias.

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 it is public and read-only, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or prerequisites. However, the context of checking availability is clear.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Describes return type (agent capabilities only, no credentials) and implies a read-only lookup. Lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or rate limits, but adequate for a simple discovery 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 plus an example, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the main purpose. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one required param, no nested objects, no output schema) and sibling context, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's role and usage but could benefit from clarifying what 'agent capabilities' entails or typical error 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 covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage). Description adds an example and format clarification but does not significantly extend beyond schema. 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 clearly states it retrieves the AP2/A2A agent-commerce block for a pay: address, uses an analogy ('DNS of Money equivalent'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating no payment credentials are returned.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'during agent discovery before initiating a mandate flow'. Provides an example. Does not explicitly list alternatives but sibling names and context imply differentiation.

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?

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and lists exact return values: registration endpoint, requirements (intent binding+domain), rate limit, and Merkle anchor-proof endpoint. It clarifies that registration itself is a separate POST, setting proper expectations.

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 highly concise: two sentences and an example. It front-loads the purpose and includes critical behavioral notes without excess.

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 covers what the tool returns and its read-only nature. Although it lacks explicit authentication requirements for the tool itself and prerequisites, it is adequate for a parameterless read-only info 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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description need not add parameter info.

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 tool returns registration info needed to self-register a pay:agent alias, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_alias_available or resolve_alias. The purpose is specific: returns endpoint, requirements, rate limit, and anchor-proof endpoint.

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 implies the tool should be used before the credential-gated POST for registration, noting it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

Discloses that the tool never moves money and describes deterministic resolver behavior. With no annotations, it adds good context about return fields and currency-specific settlement, but lacks mention of error handling or edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by relevant details and an example. No superfluous sentences.

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?

Covers return format, currency details, amount semantics, and includes an example. Lacks error scenarios or behavior for invalid aliases, but overall sufficient for a single-purpose 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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains amount omission behavior, currency-specific settlement details, and provides an example. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enhances understanding.

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 tool retrieves PaymentRequirements for a pay: alias, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like check_alias_available or resolve_alias by focusing on payment requirements.

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?

Provides explicit usage examples and explains when to omit the amount (get quoted price) vs required. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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 fully discloses behavior: it returns 'settled' or 'not_found', explains what each means, warns 'do NOT pay again' for settled, and highlights the security implication ('bearer secret'). This goes far beyond a basic statement.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and usage. Every sentence adds essential information—no fluff, no repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the scenario, return values, safety implications, and a subtle technical nuance about facilitator broadcasts, leaving no critical gaps.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by emphasizing the request_key is a bearer secret and the only way to answer, which is crucial for correct and safe use.

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 tool checks whether a payment was recorded before retrying, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('payment status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_payment_requirements by focusing on post-attempt verification.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when a paid call timed out or its response was lost' and provides the precondition (pass the request_key). It also implicitly warns against using it without an attempted payment and explains why this is the only way to resolve ambiguity on certain rails.

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 fully discloses behavior: what it returns (preferred rail, fallback endpoints, ISO 20022 hint, compliance signal), the difference between anonymous and keyed calls, and the need for a free API key to unlock full endpoint sets. No contradictions or omissions.

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 informative yet efficient, with each sentence adding value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose due to additional API key details, but still well-structured and clear.

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, the description details the return types and includes behavior for anonymous vs. authenticated calls. It covers edge cases and prerequisites, making the tool fully understandable for correct invocation.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds context by linking amount and currency to rail scoring and providing an example, but it does not significantly extend beyond the schema descriptions. 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 resolves a human-readable alias to payment endpoints and routing metadata. It includes a specific example and distinguishes its use before initiating payments, clearly differentiating it from siblings like get_payment_requirements.

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 says when to use this tool: before initiating any payment to a pay: address. It also provides context for anonymous vs. keyed calls and references the sibling get_payment_requirements as an alternative that does not require a key, guiding appropriate tool selection.

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