Hive Connector

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about bounties being tasks with rewards, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering, rate limits). With strong annotations, the description is not required to heavily supplement, but it could be improved.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key features. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous 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 (list with two optional filters), the description covers the domain context and major capabilities. The lack of output schema is not critical for a list endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and how to use it.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions and constraints. The description reiterates the filtering and limit control but provides no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 explicitly states 'List open bounties' with context about the Hive network and rewards, and mentions filtering by category and limit. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like hive_contract or hive_verify which imply different operations.

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 indicates usage for listing bounties with optional filters, but lacks explicit direction on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided.

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?

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about locking scope and spend, on-chain accountability, and return values (contract_id, HAHS version, audit trail URL). 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and timing, second lists outputs. Front-loaded and 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?

For a creation tool with no output schema, the description includes return values. It covers purpose and timing. Missing explicit prerequisites (e.g., need to call hive_onboard first), but this is implied by the api_key parameter.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'task_scope' and 'max_spend_usdc' implicitly but does not add new parameter details beyond the schema. The api_key reference to 'hive_onboard' is already in the schema's description.

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 creates a HAHS contract, specifies the action 'Create', identifies the resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'hive_settle' and 'hive_verify' by mentioning on-chain accountability and locking scope/spend.

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 says 'before a task begins', indicating when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'hive_bounties' or 'hive_onboard'. The timing is clear but lacks exclusions.

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?

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context by specifying the return values and that registration is the first step. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action and return, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and positions it as the first step in a workflow. It is complete for an agent to decide to use it, though could mention if any prerequisites exist (but none are needed per context).

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 all parameters. The description does not add additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 registers a W3C DID for an AI agent and lists specific return items (DID, API key, credits, bounty). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by identifying itself as the first step before settle, contract, or verify.

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 this is the first step and should be called before other tools like settle, contract, or verify, providing clear context and ordering. No exclusions are mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient.

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that no authentication is required and specifies the fields returned (agent count, open bounties, settlement velocity, active rails, network health), providing value beyond annotations.

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: first defines purpose and data, second provides usage context. No wasted words, and the most critical 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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters, the description covers purpose, returned fields, authentication needs, and usage scenario. No output schema exists, but the description lists the data fields, making it complete.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, so a baseline of 4 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 'Get live Hive network state' and lists specific data points like agent count, bounties, settlement velocity, etc. It distinguishes from siblings such as hive_bounties by focusing on aggregate network health rather than individual bounties.

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 says 'Use this to check if Hive is live before onboarding', which gives clear context. It implies this is a prerequisite check but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be more thorough.

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?

Annotations already indicate destructive=true and readOnly=false. The description adds that it returns a tx_hash, confirmation, and W3C VC receipt, and lists the four rails. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond the annotation (e.g., irreversible deduction of funds) or the open world hint (external API calls). It is consistent but adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence that conveys the essential information: action, participants, rails, compatibility, and output. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word serves a purpose, making it 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 absence of an output schema, the description mentions the return values (tx_hash, settlement confirmation, W3C VC receipt). It does not explain the receipt format or prerequisites (e.g., need for funds or DID registration), but the schema includes api_key from hive_onboard, which hints at onboarding. For a payment tool with four rails and AP2 compatibility, the description is fairly complete but could expand on side effects or usage context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. It repeats the list of rails but does not enhance parameter semantics, so 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 the tool's action (settle payment), participants (two agents), and specific rails (Base USDC, Aleo USDCx, etc.). It differentiates from siblings like hive_contract or hive_onboard by focusing on payment settlement. The mention of AP2/x402 compatibility further clarifies its use case.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions AP2/x402 compatibility but lacks when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and description adds context about resolving DID documents and verifying credentials without contradicting annotations.

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, efficient, front-loaded with main purpose, no redundant 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?

While covering both modes, it lacks details on return values or output format, which could help given no output schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, and description further clarifies parameter roles (DID required for both, credential optional for verification).

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 verifies W3C Verifiable Credentials or resolves DIDs for trust scores, using specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling Hive tools.

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 explains two distinct usage modes (DID resolution or credential verification) and when to use each, though it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or compare with alternatives.

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