Hive Agent Quota

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It states the operation is read-only and free, and lists return fields. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a field list. Every word adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with key action and important cost 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, read-only) and absence of output schema, the description fully covers what it does, its cost, and what it returns. No missing essential information.

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 one parameter described. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's role uniquely (agent DID) and detailing the return fields, which goes beyond the schema's description of just the DID format.

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 reads remaining quota for an agent DID and lists return fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like quota_check or quota_topup_estimate, missing a chance to clarify when to use this specific tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The mention of 'Free' is a cost note but doesn't help in tool selection. Missing context for prerequisites or typical use cases.

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?

Despite no annotations, description discloses key behaviors: cost ($0.001 USDC per unit), network (Base L2 via x402), direction (inbound only), and protocol details (first call returns 402, then mint access token and retry).

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 wasted words. Purpose stated first, then essential protocol details. Highly efficient.

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 payment process and protocol. Lacks explicit description of success response (e.g., access token or confirmation). Could mention what happens after retry.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds minimal value beyond schema ('Consume one or more quota units'). 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?

Clear verb ('consume') and resource ('quota units for an agent DID'). Distinguishes from siblings: quota_balance (read) and quota_topup_estimate (cost estimation).

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 specific usage context: payment required via x402, two-step flow (402 envelope then retry with proof). Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but context 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?

Description discloses it is free and returns specific fields (asking_usd, accept_min_usd), which is useful. However, with no annotations, it does not cover potential prerequisites (e.g., existing DID), rate limits, or side effects. It adequately describes the operation but leaves some gaps.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains output usage. No redundant information. Front-loaded with core functionality.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, output fields, and usage instructions. It slightly lacks comparison with siblings and potential error scenarios, but it is largely complete for an estimation 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?

The sole parameter 'units' has 100% schema coverage with description 'Units to top up.' The tool description adds 'N units' but does not clarify the unit type (e.g., data, tokens). Schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate; description adds minimal semantic value beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool estimates USDC cost for topping up a DID, with a specific verb (estimate) and resource (cost). It distinguishes from siblings (quota_balance and quota_check) which likely deal with balance checks, not cost estimation.

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?

Description provides guidance to use the returned values to construct an x402 proof, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. The context with siblings implies usage for cost estimation before topp up, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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