WHP Standing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses the payment challenge, 1 USDC Base settlement, and Ed25519-signed output. It omits error behavior, permission requirements beyond payment, and idempotency semantics, so transparency is only partial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the payment workflow, with no obvious filler. It could be slightly tighter, but it is 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?

The tool has six parameters, a nested provenance object, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the payment flow and signed result but does not explain the output structure, API-key bypass, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for payment_signature and the unpaid challenge flow, but it does not explain the roles of subject, provenance, api_key, or idempotency_key beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: evaluate a proposition and receive a signed Standing determination. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools whp_standing_evaluation or whp_standing_result.

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 gives operational sequencing: call without payment to get the x402 challenge, then pass payment_signature to settle. It does not state when to use this tool versus the sibling standing tools, so alternative selection is left 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 annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the safety profile is covered. The description adds relevant behavioral context by stating the result is machine-verifiable, bounded by explicit authority, and contains the payment contract and prerequisites. It does not contradict the 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 a single sentence with a colon-separated summary that front-loads the core action and then lists the included components. It is compact and efficient, though the phrase 'Machine-verifiable standing under explicit authority and bounds' is somewhat abstract and jargon-heavy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the key return elements: exact profile, schema, authority prerequisites, and owner-authorized payment contract. For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool this is sufficient to set expectations, even though the exact output format is not detailed.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to supply. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details.

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 names a specific action (Discover) and resource (WHP Standing), and enumerates bundled content: exact profile, schema, authority prerequisites, and owner-authorized payment contract. It is clear about what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools, preventing 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as whp_standing_evaluation or whp_standing_result. The content list implies a contract-discovery role, but no when-to-use, exclusion, or alternative-selection information is 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 cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: a mandatory 402 payment handshake, the constraint that the signature must be the buyer's own, and the consequence that payment alone does not grant standing and a failed assessment yields no Mark. Missing only edge details like retry limits or what a successful response contains.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the payment flow, with no filler. It is dense and information-bearing throughout, though the domain jargon ("Mark") adds an unexplained term.

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?

There is no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, so the description must compensate, and it does not: submission_raw and client_proof are unexplained, and it never says what a Standing Evaluation result looks like or how it relates to the contract/result siblings. The payment flow is covered but the core input contract is not.

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% for three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It partially covers payment_signature ("buyer's own pre-authorized payment signature") but says nothing about submission_raw, the sole required parameter, or client_proof, leaving the agent unable to know what to put in the most important field.

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 names a verb and resource ("Request a WHP Standing Evaluation"), so the basic action is identifiable. However, "WHP Standing Evaluation" is an opaque domain term and the description never differentiates this tool from its siblings whp_standing_contract and whp_standing_result, so an agent cannot tell which of the three to pick from this text alone.

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 does provide operational context: the first call returns HTTP 402 terms and the retry must carry the buyer's own pre-authorized payment signature. That is useful invocation guidance, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against the two sibling tools, so selection remains implied rather than stated.

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that buyer authentication is required and that invoking it does not incur another charge. It also emphasizes exact original bytes, adding behavioral fidelity context.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with action and object, no filler. Every phrase adds a constraint or expectation.

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?

The core retrieval behavior and auth requirement are present, and annotations cover safety and idempotence. But with no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, it is incomplete for an agent to know what client_proof should contain and what response shape to expect.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It only alludes to client_proof as 'buyer authentication' and leaves purchase_id entirely implicit; it doesn't explain proof origin/format or how purchase_id relates to the purchase.

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 verb 'Retrieve' plus a precise object ('exact original WHP Standing Mark or negative assessment bytes') clarifies that this returns stored result data, not modifies it. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools, but the resource scope and 'without another charge' distinguish it from contract/evaluation 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 implies this is the post-purchase retrieval path ('without another charge', 'buyer authentication'), so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it offers no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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