AuthiChain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns a score, gaps, and dated obligations, and adds an important limitation: 'Not legal advice.' It does not detail data handling or side effects, but as a non-mutating readiness check this is adequate.

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 concise sentences: what it is, what it returns, and a key legal disclaimer. Every sentence adds value, and the most important 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?

Without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values. The eight parameters are fully documented in the schema. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how to use the boolean inputs to interpret the score, but this is minor given the schema detail.

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 provides 100% parameter descriptions, including detailed enum meanings for category and clear definitions for each boolean readiness factor. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because schema coverage is complete.

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 a specific action ('readiness check') on a clear resource ('EU Digital Product Passport'), and specifies the output: a 0-100 score, gaps, and a dated obligation. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_pricing, query_provenance, and 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 implies use when assessing EU DPP readiness, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for a basic selection, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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 states 'Live' indicating real-time data and mentions the specific POST endpoint for agents, which is behavioral. However, it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or the response structure. The lack of any safety/read-only hint means the agent must rely on the tool name to infer a read operation.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Live AuthiChain prices') and then enumerates the covered items. It is succinct but slightly dense due to the semicolon and the division between humans and agents. Every phrase adds value, though the structure could be clearer with two 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what kind of pricing data is returned and distinguishes the two audiences. However, it does not describe the response format (e.g., JSON structure, units, currency) or any errors, which might be useful but not critical for a simple price-lookup 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to document, so the baseline 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 returns live prices for specific AuthiChain products (Passport, Farm, EU DPP Payment Links for humans; unpaid POST /api/x402 for agents). It names the exact items, making its purpose distinct from siblings like dpp_readiness_check, query_provenance, and verify, which are not pricing-related.

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 – it is for retrieving pricing data – but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sibling tools or any exclusions. The distinction between 'for humans' and 'for agents' offers some context, but there is no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' phrasing. The agent must infer that this is the pricing lookup tool.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that it is free and public, never attests, and returns 'unknown' for unknown IDs. It also notes the cost of the alternative, providing useful operational context. It doesn't mention side effects, but as a read-only lookup, the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key differentiators (unknown IDs, verify alternative). Information is front-loaded and 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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (unknown status) and the key alternative. It doesn't describe the return format, but that is often implicit for lookups. The free/public nature is mentioned, so auth is addressed implicitly. Overall, it is sufficient 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?

The schema covers the sole parameter assetId with a description ('Seal, serial, or QR token identifier') that fully explains its meaning. The description's reference to 'assetId / seal / QR token' is redundant. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no additional semantic 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 states a specific verb (lookup) and resource (assetId/seal/QR token), and immediately distinguishes itself from the verify sibling by saying 'Never attests'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from cryptographic 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?

It explicitly routes to the verify tool for cryptographic verification ('Cryptographic verify is tools/call verify'), giving a clear alternative. However, it doesn't mention the other siblings (dpp_readiness_check, get_pricing), though their purposes (readiness, pricing) are distinct enough that the context is adequate without explicit 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?

With no annotations, the description does add useful behavioral context: calls are paid, failure yields HTTP 402, and retry should include X-PAYMENT. However, it omits what happens on success, whether the operation is read-only, and any side effects or prerequisites.

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 text is short and front-loads the payment constraint, with no filler. But it is under-specified: payment behavior takes up both sentences while the core verification semantics are absent, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool definition should carry far more context. It covers payment failure but leaves the actual verify call, input relationships, and result semantics undefined.

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?

All three parameters (sealId, serial, productId) are undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not mention them. An agent has no basis for choosing or formatting parameter values.

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 says 'Paid AuthiChain verification,' which largely restates the tool name 'verify' and gives no concrete resource or action. It does not explain what gets verified (a seal, a serial, a product) or how this differs from query_provenance.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is given; the only usage note is about payment, not tool selection. An agent cannot tell whether to call this instead of query_provenance or dpp_readiness_check.

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