PJELLY Deals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds 'address check only' which clarifies the scope of the check, but it does not describe the return value or any network behavior. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core function and a scope qualifier. There is no wasted wording, and the essential purpose is front-loaded before the 'address check only' clarifier.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, annotations cover read-only and idempotency, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. Its only gap is not stating what the return value looks like (e.g., boolean), but this is a minor omission for a check-style tool where the result is intuitively a yes/no answer.

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% (the 'url' parameter has a clear description with an example). The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Check') and resource ('whether a web address is an official Ledger or Coinbase site'), and adds a clarifying scope ('address check only'). It is distinct from the sibling tools, which all deal with deals or guides, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (verifying a URL before trusting it), and the phrase 'address check only' signals that it does not perform deeper verification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative, though the siblings are unrelated, so confusion is minimal.

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 establish that the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that comparisons rely only on facts from PeanutButterJelly.io's guides, which sets expectations about evidence sourcing and scope. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the acceptable offer count, and the data source. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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, read-only tool, the description plus schema and annotations is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance toward sibling tools, but that is not essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'ids' is fully described with type, min/max items, and an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 names a specific operation (side-by-side comparison), a clear resource (2 to 4 offers), and a grounding constraint (facts from PeanutButterJelly.io's guides). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_deal or search_deals, which handle single deals or searching.

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 explicitly defines when to use the tool: when comparing 2 to 4 offers. The min/max range also implicitly excludes single-deal lookups and larger comparisons, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_deal for single-deal cases.

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=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a 'plain-text summary', which gives some return-format context, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as content length, language, or what happens if a topic is unsupported.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: it specifies the output format ('plain-text summary'), the source ('PeanutButterJelly.io'), and the two possible topics ('crypto exchange or cold wallet').

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, read-only tool with a complete schema and annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the return format and the domain, and no output schema exists to require additional return-value documentation.

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%: the single required parameter 'topic' has an enum and a description ('Which guide to summarize.'). The tool description adds light context by naming the two guide areas, but the schema already carries the semantic weight, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb-resource pair: it provides a plain-text summary of a specific guide page on PeanutButterJelly.io. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_deal and search_deals, which relate to deals, not buying guides.

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 tool's purpose makes its usage context fairly obvious: use it to retrieve a summary of either the crypto exchange guide or the cold wallet guide. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or mention any exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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 readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the annotations already cover the safety profile of the operation. The description adds that it returns the 'full record' for one offer, which is useful, but it does not elaborate on response shape or any other behavioral details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part—action, resource, uniqueness, and examples—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 strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. The lack of an output schema is offset by the explicit statement that the tool returns the 'full record.'

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete id examples ('coinbase-exchange, ledger-flex') that clarify the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'Offer id' phrasing. This extra context helps an agent pick a valid 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full record for one offer by id'), clearly distinguishing this from a search/list operation like search_deals. It also provides concrete id examples, making the tool's 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 implies the tool is for looking up a single offer once an id is known, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_buying_guide or search_deals. The schema's id description points to search_deals as a source, but the main description itself leaves the routing mostly implied.

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=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose—it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of deals), whether results are limited, or any pagination. With no output schema, this omission is a significant gap.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the results look like (e.g., a list of deals) and any limitations. It mentions neither the return format nor pagination. The presence of sibling tools (get_deal, get_buying_guide) is not referenced, leaving the agent to guess when to use this tool. The description is too minimal for full contextual completeness.

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 both 'query' and 'category' fully documented including examples and enum values. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 action (search) and the specific resource (PeanutButterJelly.io's crypto exchange and hardware wallet offers) with a method (by keyword). It is distinct from siblings like get_deal (retrieves a specific deal) and get_buying_guide (returns a guide), making its 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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_deal should be used for a specific deal or that get_buying_guide is for guides, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. No exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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