Gate Network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' which conveys non-destructive behavior, but gives no information about error handling, auth, or output details beyond 'definition'.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-parameter read operation, but lacks guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools and omits behavior for invalid/missing IDs.

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 single parameter gateId is not described in the schema. The description implies it identifies the gate to return, but adds no format, example, or further meaning beyond the obvious.

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 ('Return') and resource ('one Gate Network gate definition') make the tool's purpose obvious. It implies a singular lookup, distinguishing it from list/search at a basic level, but does not explicitly reference sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (list_gates, search_gates, get_preflight). The description states what it does but provides no context for when it should be chosen.

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 full behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Never signs, pays, settles, or executes the provider' explicitly tells the agent this is a read-only operation with no side effects, and 'Read unpaid' clarifies it only exposes the unpaid subset. This is strong behavioral transparency for a simple read tool, though it does not mention pagination, ordering, or response format.

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 entire description is two sentences with no filler. It leads with the core purpose and immediately adds the critical caveat about never paying/executing. Every word earns its place, making this an exemplary concise description.

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 tool with one required string parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job of stating purpose and behavior but leaves out parameter semantics and the exact return value. Agents may still infer that reading requirements returns requirements, but the missing gateId explanation creates a gap that could force opening the schema (which also has no description). Completeness is acceptable but not 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 input schema has zero description coverage and the description does not mention the gateId parameter at all. The only clue to its meaning comes from the tool name and sibling names, but the description itself does not explain what gateId is or how to get it. For a single-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should explicitly define the parameter's role.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read unpaid x402 requirements' and clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings (describe_gate, list_gates, search_gates) by focusing on x402 preflight requirements rather than gate metadata. It also explicitly contrasts the read behavior from signing/paying/settling/executing, removing ambiguity about what this tool is for.

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 stating this reads unpaid requirements and explicitly says it never signs/pays/settles/executes, which tells the agent when not to use it. However, it does not name alternatives or explain under what condition to use get_preflight instead of a sibling like describe_gate, so the guidance is only implicit.

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 disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no payment or provider execution,' which is a critical safety trait that prevents misuse. However, it does not describe the response format, pagination, or other potential side effects, though these may be less critical for a zero-parameter list 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a key safety note. The description is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, safety, and lack of execution. It does not mention pagination or return structure, but these are unlikely to prevent correct invocation. The read-only disclosure compensates for the absence of annotations.

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 input schema is already fully covered (100%). Per the baseline rule for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics for the description to add beyond the empty 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Gate Network toll gates'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like describe_gate or search_gates by indicating it returns all available gates. The read-only qualifier further differentiates it from tools that execute payments or provider calls.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies a broad listing via 'available' but does not mention search_gates for filtered queries or describe_gate for a single gate, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from sibling names.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a useful behavioral disclosure given that no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention result limits, pagination, authentication needs, or what specifically 'available' means, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely short—three meaningful sentences (or two sentence fragments) —and every word contributes to the core purpose. No padding, redundancy, or irrelevant detail.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Yet it leaves out practical context like whether results are intended to feed describe_gate, what constitutes a valid query, and what a caller should expect in return.

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 0% description coverage for the query parameter. The tool description only says 'Search...', implying query is the search text, but adds no detail about what fields it matches, whether it is partial or exact, or how to format the query. Because the schema also lacks this info, the description does not adequately compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Gate Network toll gates'), so it is not a tautology. It is clear that this tool performs search, which is distinct from 'list_gates' and 'describe_gate', though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_gates or describe_gate. The description does not state whether to use search_gates for finding gate IDs by name/location or which conditions should lead to choosing an alternative.

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