SouthPow fact API

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC) and provides payment details, which is important. However, it does not clarify whether the tool initiates payment or if the user must pay separately, nor does it mention error behavior, rate limits, or response format. It adds some behavioral context but leaves key aspects ambiguous.

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 all essential information, but it front-loads 'Paid.' which is important context. The payment and URL details are concise but could be separated for readability. Overall, it is efficient and not verbose.

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 paid tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks clarity on the payment mechanism (who pays, when), the response format, error handling, and whether non-AAPL ids are valid. It also does not mention siblings for routing. An agent would have uncertainty about how to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 schema already documents the 'id' parameter as 'Fact id'. The description adds no meaningful enrichment; instead, it suggests the parameter is fixed to AAPL, which contradicts the schema's default and potential extensibility. This could mislead an agent about the parameter's scope.

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 clear verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one AAPL filing fact (SEC 10-K/10-Q)'), which is specific. However, it implies only AAPL, while the schema allows any id via the default parameter, creating a slight mismatch. It does not name sibling tools to differentiate, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_schema or search_facts. The payment requirement is mentioned but not framed as a selection condition. The description implies it is for fetching a single known fact, but this is not stated as a rule or alternative.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool is free and mentions a PayTo address, but it does not explain what kind of schema is returned, whether any authentication is needed, or what access constraints exist. The payment address is also confusingly placed for a tool described as free.

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 short and front-loaded with 'Free', but it includes a PayTo address that is not clearly relevant to retrieving a free schema. The extra payment details add noise without strengthening the tool's 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned schema looks like and what exactly it covers. It names the AAPL fact and URL, but it does not state the schema format, structure, or whether this tool only ever returns schema for that hardcoded fact. This leaves an agent guessing about the actual return value.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as providing a schema for a specific fact (AAPL) and gives a direct URL, so an agent can infer it returns schema information rather than fact data or search results. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches', and the Free/PayTo phrasing introduces slight ambiguity about what the tool actually 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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to call get_schema versus the sibling tools fetch_fact or search_facts. The 'Free' versus 'paid AAPL filing fact' wording implies a cost-based distinction, but the description never states that get_schema should be used instead of fetching the paid fact.

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 disclosure burden. It usefully reveals cost behavior ('Free', '$0.01 USDC'), payment address, and source data (SEC 10-K/10-Q). But it does not disclose output format, rate limits, pagination, or whether the query parameter is required for the listing behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the key action: 'Free. List filing-fact SKUs.' The paid-fetch detail is dense but relevant. It could be slightly better structured by separating the payment details into a clearer sentence, but there is no real waste.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It does not explain the query parameter, likely return values, or how this tool relates to the sibling tools beyond the paid URL. An agent would still have to guess at key details.

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 schema has zero description coverage and the only parameter, 'query', is optional. The description gives no direct guidance on what to put in query, how it filters SKUs, or whether omitting it returns all SKUs. The paid URL hinting at id=AAPL is indirect and insufficient.

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: 'List filing-fact SKUs.' It also clearly distinguishes this tool from the paid fetch path by labeling search as 'Free' and giving the paid fetch URL. This is enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and to tell it apart from fetch_fact.

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 clear context: listing SKUs is free, fetching a fact is paid, and it includes the paid endpoint URL. This implies when to use this tool vs the paid fetch. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or mention get_schema, and it does not state when not to use search_facts.

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