AgentPay

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral trait that this operation does not charge, which is not covered by the annotations, providing extra transparency about side effects.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that deliver essential information without unnecessary detail or repetition. It is well-structured 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?

The description is complete for the tool's purpose: it states what is returned, when to call it, and that it does not charge. No additional context is needed for an agent to decide whether and how to use it.

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 sole parameter 'include_wallet' has a clear description explaining its effect ('include the derived agent wallet address') and its default value (true). This fully covers the parameter's semantics, leaving no ambiguity.

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 function: returning AgentPay payment configuration. It enumerates the specific fields (network, price, spending limit, payment mode, gateway URL, agent wallet address) that will be returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call this before paid tools to verify the wallet is configured, or after a payment error.' This directly tells the agent the appropriate contexts for invocation.

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 discloses that the tool performs a search (read-only) and incurs a micro-transaction, which is transparent about its behavioral side effects. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) reinforce this, and there is no contradiction between the description and 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 concise and well-structured, covering the core function, output summary, and cost in a few sentences. It is free of redundancy and directly addresses the tool's primary use case without 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?

The description adequately conveys the tool's output (item list with MOQ, price, location, verification) and mentions the cost, which is important for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. It does not detail error handling or pagination, but these are not essential for the core use case and the provided context (output schema exists) is sufficient.

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 have detailed descriptions: 'keyword' is explicitly defined with an example (English or Chinese), 'max_price' is described as an optional maximum unit price filter, and 'category_id' is explained as an optional catalog category filter. The schema coverage is 100% and the descriptions add meaningful context beyond the names.

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 function: searching factory-direct wholesale pricing samples for a product keyword. It specifies the domain (1688/Yiwu style catalog) and the key output attributes (MOQ, unit price USD, factory location, supplier verification flags), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 practical guidance by stating 'Use for China sourcing research' and mentions the cost of ~0.01 USDC per query. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the distinct domain (China wholesale pricing vs payment status or xhs notes) makes the usage context clear enough.

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 transparently discloses a payment side effect ('Settles ~0.01 USDC via x402 on each successful call'), but this contradicts the idempotentHint annotation: repeated identical calls would incur repeated payments. It also tensions with readOnlyHint, which implies no state-changing side effects. Because the description contradicts the annotations, the score is 1.

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 three focused sentences with no filler: what it fetches, what it returns, when to call it, and the payment detail. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the input format, output contents, trigger condition, and cost side effect. Since an output schema is present, detailed return-structure documentation is unnecessary, though error handling or failure behavior is not mentioned.

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% with clear explanations of both parameters, including examples and the optional note_type hint. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the exact resource (one Xiaohongshu note by URL or 24-char note_id) plus the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like xhs_get_user_notes.

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 states when to call the tool ('when the user pastes an xiaohongshu.com/explore link or a note id'), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' bar.

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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the cost 'Settles ~0.01 USDC via x402 per page' and the pagination contract (returns next_cursor). These are not derivable from annotations and are essential for an agent to anticipate side effects and costs.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return content, usage trigger, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary action, then essential details. No redundant or filler wording.

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 two-parameter, paginated list tool with a rich output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers all needed call context: purpose, pagination return, usage trigger, and cost. Nothing critical is missing. The output schema exists, so return details are not the description's burden.

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%: both user_id and cursor have thorough descriptions, including the cursor's default and first-page behavior. The description's mention of 'next_cursor' and 'paginated' repeats schema information without adding new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already fully documents parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List posted notes for a Xiaohongshu user_id'. It explicitly mentions pagination and return format, and distinguishes from the sibling xhs_get_note_detail by focusing on listing rather than single-note detail. The usage hint 'Use when the user asks for a creator's recent posts' reinforces the purpose.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when the user asks for a creator's recent posts.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the clear trigger covers the main selection case. A 4 reflects clear context without exclusions or alternatives.

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