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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: the data comes from 'the latest daily full-catalogue snapshot' (indicating potential staleness), the cost is disclosed ($0.002/call via x402), and the optional network filter is described. It does not mention output format or error behavior, but given the read-only nature, the key traits are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no fluff. It efficiently conveys the stats provided, the snapshot source, the optional filter, and the cost. Every sentence 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned (percentiles, price bands, medians), the data source (daily snapshot), and cost. It could mention the response structure or error handling, but for a stats query, the description is largely complete. Slightly more detail on return format would push it to a 5.

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 only parameter, network, is fully described in the schema with an example and instruction to omit for all networks. The description repeats this via 'Optionally filter to one network.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 what the tool does: it provides a percentile distribution (atomic + USD), USD price bands with market share, and per-network medians for x402 Bazaar listings, based on a daily snapshot. This is a specific, distinct function compared to sibling tools like bazaar_pulse or bazaar_trending, which focus on other aspects. The purpose is immediately clear.

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—'How x402 Bazaar listings are priced right now'—and mentions the optional network filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bazaar_market_report or bazaar_delta. There are no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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