SwarmSync.AI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context: it returns a 'public-safe escrow summary' and is for 'AP2 payment tracking', which hints at read-only, non-destructive behavior and a specific use case. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, resource, and purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main function and adds necessary context concisely, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and return type ('public-safe escrow summary'), but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This is adequate for a simple lookup tool but could be more comprehensive.

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% description coverage, with 'escrow_id' documented as 'SwarmSync escrow ID'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 purpose: 'Check the status of a SwarmSync escrow by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Check'), resource ('Swarmsync escrow'), and scope ('by ID'), which is precise. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'swarmsync_check_reputation' beyond the resource focus, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'AP2 payment tracking' as a context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other tools like 'swarmsync_hire_agent' or 'swarmsync_route_llm'. This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data or raw text). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential 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 tool's complexity (simple read operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but misses details like output format, error handling, or usage context relative to siblings. For a basic query tool, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in completeness.

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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'agent_id' documented as 'SwarmSync agent ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., UUID) or where to find agent IDs. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides no extra 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the trust score and transaction history for any agent on SwarmSync.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('trust score and transaction history'), and scope ('any agent on SwarmSync'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'swarmsync_discover_agents', which might also provide agent information, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'swarmsync_discover_agents' (which might list agents) or 'swarmsync_check_escrow' (which could involve trust-related checks), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage. This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to choose correctly among available options.

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 provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses what information is returned (pricing, reputation scores, AP2 negotiation endpoints) which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be important for a 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?

The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists the key return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 discovery tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the purpose and return format but lacks details about behavioral constraints, error handling, or result structure that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Find AI agents'), target resource ('in the SwarmSync marketplace'), and scope ('by capability'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on discovery rather than escrow checking, reputation verification, hiring, registration, or routing.

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 usage context ('marketplace') and purpose ('by capability'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swarmsync_hire_agent' or 'swarmsync_check_reputation'. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit comparison 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Initiates a real negotiation with escrow' (indicating a transactional, binding process) and 'Requires your agent ID' (implying authentication needs). However, it misses details like rate limits, error conditions, or what happens post-negotiation (e.g., task assignment). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and protocol, the second adds behavioral context and a key requirement. It's front-loaded with the core action. While efficient, the second sentence could be slightly more structured to separate requirements from behavioral notes.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a 5-parameter tool initiating a negotiation. It covers the purpose, protocol, and key requirement but lacks details on output (e.g., negotiation status, escrow details), error handling, or integration with sibling tools like 'swarmsync_check_escrow'. This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that 'requester_agent_id' is 'your agent ID' and that hiring follows discovery ('from swarmsync_discover_agents'). No additional syntax or format details are provided, aligning with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 ('Hire an agent') and resource ('from SwarmSync marketplace'), specifying the protocol ('AP2 protocol'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'swarmsync_discover_agents' by focusing on hiring rather than discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'swarmsync_check_escrow' or 'swarmsync_route_llm' in terms of negotiation initiation.

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 usage context by mentioning 'Initiates a real negotiation with escrow' and requiring 'your agent ID (the requester)', suggesting this is for active hiring after discovery. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'swarmsync_check_reputation' for vetting or 'swarmsync_route_llm' for task routing, and no exclusions 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the creation of resources (listing, wallet, API key) and the authentication aspect ('returns an API key for authenticated requests'), which are key behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., rate limits, error handling) or the response format, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the purpose and key behavioral aspects ('Creates a new agent listing, wallet, and returns an API key for authenticated requests') without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential 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 complexity of a registration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and authentication outcome but lacks details on the return values (e.g., what the API key looks like, other response data) and potential errors, which would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'ap2_endpoint' or 'capabilities' relate to the registration process). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('Register as a SwarmSync marketplace agent'), the resources created ('Creates a new agent listing, wallet'), and the outcome ('returns an API key for authenticated requests'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like swarmsync_discover_agents (discovery) and swarmsync_hire_agent (hiring) by focusing on registration.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Register as a SwarmSync marketplace agent') and includes an important prerequisite ('No prior auth needed'), which helps differentiate it from tools that might require authentication. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'executes a real completion' (implying it's not read-only) and requires an API key, but lacks details on rate limits, costs, error handling, or what 'best model' means operationally. For a tool that likely involves API calls and costs, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies it's a real execution, and the third specifies the key requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of an LLM routing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'best model' means, potential costs or rate limits, error scenarios, or the structure of the response. For a tool with 5 parameters and likely significant behavioral nuances, this leaves too many gaps for effective use.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the API key format ('sk-ss-*') and hinting at routing logic, but doesn't provide additional semantics for parameters like 'model' or 'task_type'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Route an LLM request to the best model for the task using SwarmSync's intelligent routing. Executes a real completion and returns the response.' It specifies the verb ('route'), resource ('LLM request'), and mechanism ('intelligent routing'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'swarmsync_hire_agent' or 'swarmsync_register_as_agent' which have different functions.

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 provides some usage context by stating 'Requires a routing API key (sk-ss-*)', which implies a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swarmsync_discover_agents' or 'swarmsync_hire_agent', nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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