Scout Packs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the single most important behavioral fact: this call only returns requirements, while the agent's own wallet executes the USDC payment against the endpoint. That correctly frames the operation as non-charging and non-destructive. It still omits auth requirements, whether requirements expire, and idempotency, so it is not complete.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the parameter values and the execution model. The inline 'pack: ...' fragment sits awkwardly mid-description rather than being grouped with parameter info, a minor structural blemish.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the single-parameter surface is simple. The description adds the critical interaction model and the valid pack values, though it leaves post-payment behavior (verification, delivery of the pack) and permissions unaddressed.

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 0% and the 'pack' property has no description or enum constraint in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: 'pack: "25", "50", or "100"' supplies the exact allowed values the schema lacks. It does not explain what the numbers mean (credits, leads), leaving a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving x402 payment requirements and the buying flow for a Scout Pack. It usefully clarifies that this tool does not itself purchase ('Returns what the buying agent must do; the agent's own wallet executes the USDC payment'), which disambiguates a misleadingly named 'buy_' tool. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_packs, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied — call this to obtain the payment requirements before actually paying — but the description never states when to use this versus list_packs, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Implied context only, so 3 is appropriate.

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 behavioral burden. It adds a little context (the operation is free, the sample is redacted), but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination, or auth requirements, which is thin for a listing endpoint.

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, the second being a fragment describing the lead contents. It is short but the phrasing is promotional and not front-loaded around the tool's function.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value exposition is not required, and the description does indicate what the packs contain. However, with no annotations and no routing information relative to buy_pack or lookup_lead, it stops short of being 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies. There are no arguments for the description to elaborate on.

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 conveys what the tool surfaces — B2B lead packs with sizes, prices, and a redacted sample — but it reads as marketing copy rather than stating the action plainly (it never says it returns/lists available packs). It also never differentiates itself from the sibling buy_pack, leaving the browse-vs-purchase distinction to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives buy_pack or lookup_lead. The word "Free" faintly implies this is a no-cost browsing step before purchase, but that is left for the agent to infer.

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 and does solid work: it discloses the $0.01 USDC cost, that it returns x402 payment requirements, and that the agent's wallet must execute the payment. It does not cover failure modes such as whether the fee is still charged when no lead is found, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cost, payment mechanics, and examples in four tight clauses with no filler. Slightly more text than strictly necessary, but every sentence carries actionable 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required; the description instead covers the non-obvious paid-invocation flow, which is the highest-value context for this tool. The only gap is behavior on a no-match or failed payment.

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 0% and 'query' has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it does by giving accepted input forms via examples ('Acme Corp' as a company name, 'acme.com' as a domain). It does not clarify precedence when a string could be read as either, so it is not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('B2B lead enrichment: contact lookup by company name or domain') and names the exact deliverable ('verified business email + source URL'). An agent immediately knows what the tool produces and what input it consumes, which is enough to distinguish it from the unrelated buy_pack/list_packs siblings.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'Enrich one lead' signals single-record scope (as opposed to bulk), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. It never says what to do if no email is found or whether to prefer another tool for batch enrichment.

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