agentshield.live facts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: the route is not executed. It says nothing about what happens for an unknown path, whether auth is required to inspect paid routes, or what form the description takes.

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, no filler, and the core scope statement comes before the non-invocation caveat. Nothing is wasted given how simple the tool is.

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 one-parameter lookup this is close to adequate, but there is no output schema, so the description should indicate what 'describe' actually returns (parameters, pricing, docs?) and it does not. The agent knows what to pass but not what it will get back.

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% and the single required parameter already carries the exact same example ('such as /iban') in its description, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Describe one paid route') plus the selector ('by path, such as /iban'). 'One' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_routes, though the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

'Does not call it' usefully signals this is metadata lookup rather than invocation, which is the key usage distinction an agent needs. However, it never names list_routes as the alternative for discovery or states preconditions (e.g. the route must exist), leaving selection guidance 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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it addresses the highest-stakes trait in this domain: the call is non-invoking and free ('does not spend USDC'). It omits secondary traits such as whether results are paginated or cached.

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 resource, followed by the single most important constraint. Nothing is wasted.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (routes, prices, limits) and the key cost behavior. Only the relationship to describe_route and any result-size limits are missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly adds no parameter commentary that would be redundant.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource set ('paid fact routes, prices, and limits'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It does not name the sibling describe_route, so the list-vs-describe distinction is left implicit.

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?

'Does not call them and does not spend USDC' implies this is a discovery step taken before invoking a route, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer describe_route over this tool, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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