wire

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read-only informational operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose any side effects or required permissions.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the key concept. It is not overly verbose but could be slightly clearer for newcomers.

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 lack of parameters and output schema, the description provides reasonable context by listing the main topics. However, it could be more complete by detailing the structure or format of the returned information.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining what topics are covered (endpoints, doctrine, dealing, settlement), which is helpful for understanding the tool's purpose.

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 that the tool provides information about csclear, a common-carrier dealing wire, including endpoints, doctrine, and settlement. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a reference/informational resource. However, the jargon may be unclear without context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like conv_status or tape. The description does not mention when-not to use it or suggest other tools for specific purposes.

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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only query by stating 'public status', but does not explicitly declare safety (no side effects, no permissions needed). Key behavioral details like rate limits, data freshness, or potential errors are absent.

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, which is concise but omits critical information. It lists output fields but lacks structure (e.g., no separation between input and output description). The brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 lack of output schema and only one parameter, the description should clearly define the parameter and the return value structure. It only enumerates fields but does not explain types, formats, or edge cases. The sibling tools are diverse but none overlap in purpose, yet this tool's description remains incomplete.

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 single parameter 'conv' is listed in the schema with only a type (string) and no description. The tool description does not explain what 'conv' represents (likely a conversation ID) or how to format it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any parameter meaning.

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 it returns 'public status of a conversation' and lists specific fields (state, seq, chain head, deals count, halted/sealed flags, settlement lifecycle). The tool name 'conv_status' aligns with this purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deal_status' and 'about', though could be more precise about what 'conversation' refers to.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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 must fully cover behavioral traits. It implies a read-only lookup but does not disclose safety, mutability, authentication requirements, or any limitations. The phrase 'resolves to' suggests it returns data, but no details about side effects or constraints.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the action (look up), the identifier (tid), and the output scope. No superfluous words or redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately outlines what the tool returns (conv, terms, lifecycle) and the chain coverage. However, it lacks specifics on response structure, error cases, or pagination, which could be missing for a complete understanding.

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 parameter tid has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds context that tid comes from CONFIRM, which helps distinguish its source. However, it does not provide format, length, or example values, so additional meaning is limited.

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 looks up a deal by tid, specifying what it resolves to (conv, terms, on-chain lifecycle) and the blockchain scope (Polygon and Base). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like conv_status, which may cause confusion.

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 when a tid from CONFIRM is available, but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives among siblings. No exclusionary criteria or context for appropriate use.

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 must fully explain behavior. It discloses that rings are removed upon return, indicating a destructive action. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects, which would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that immediately conveys the core function. Every phrase adds value, making it efficient for rapid comprehension.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary action but omits critical details: the meaning of the parameter, the return structure, and any potential errors. This gaps reduce completeness for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 one required parameter (operator_pk) with no description in the schema or the tool description. The description mentions 'for a desk' but does not explain that operator_pk likely identifies the desk. This leaves the agent guessing the parameter's purpose and format.

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 drains pending incoming rings for a desk, using a specific verb (drain) and resource (pending incoming rings). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_conv or send_call, which deal with different operations.

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 mentions polling behavior ('Poll every N seconds instead of holding a WS') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or contexts are given, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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 provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return content (dealing codes, presence, pubkeys) and implies it is a lookup/list operation. However, it does not mention behavior like sorting, pagination, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only, leaving gaps.

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 core purpose efficiently. No extraneous words. It earns its place, though a bit more detail could improve without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It mentions the key output fields. However, it could be improved by briefly noting the format or structure of the output.

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% for the one parameter. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema's 'include live online status (default true)'. 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 tool returns registered dealing codes (4-letter desk identities) with live presence and X25519 pubkeys. It is specific and resource-focused, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, though the unique combination of features makes it stand out.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives from the sibling tools. There is no context on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like data volume, pagination, caching, authentication requirements, or potential size limits. For a tool returning 'every instrument', size could be significant.

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?

Single sentence packed with all essential information. No filler, every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and content.

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?

While description lists components, it lacks output schema and does not specify return format (list vs. object, nesting, field names). Agent cannot anticipate exact structure. More detail would improve completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Description adds no parameter details, but none needed. With no parameters, baseline is 4; the description focuses on output, which 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 precisely states it returns 'every instrument on the network' and enumerates the components: registered specs (schema, oracle, expiry), live axes, and recent prints. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'spec' (likely a single spec) and 'tape' (probable prints).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Does not state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. Agent must infer from name and description alone.

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 of disclosing behavioral traits (e.g., output, side effects, auth needs). The description provides none of this information, offering only an obscure phrase.

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?

While short, the description is under-specified and poorly structured. It reads like a cryptic note rather than a coherent explanation, wasting the opportunity to convey useful information.

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 absence of parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description should fully explain the tool's purpose and output. It fails entirely, leaving the tool's function ambiguous and incomplete for the agent.

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, so baseline is 4, but the description fails to add meaning. It does not explain what the tool returns or how it operates, so the agent cannot infer its function from the description alone.

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 'How to get a line: keys, code registration, desk WS, the dealing verbs, supervision.' is vague and does not clearly state what the tool does. It lists terms but lacks a specific verb or resource, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'about' or 'instruments'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction.

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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool lists published mandates and can filter by operator or agent, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or pagination behavior. The agent cannot assess safety or 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 a single sentence with a parenthetical clarification, very concise. Every word adds value, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description should clarify the return structure (list of mandates?), field composition, and behavior when no filter is applied. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 0% (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains that 'operator' and 'agent' are filter keys for pubkeys, adding basic meaning. However, it does not specify format constraints or behavior when both are provided, leaving gaps.

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 retrieves published mandates, explaining the concept 'operator authorises agent to deal within a scope' and identifies the specific resource. It also specifies the filtering capability, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like 'about' or 'conv_status'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks explicit usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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 must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions sorting by code and the absence of firm prices, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or what side effects exist.

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 and front-loaded, but it is cryptic and sacrifices clarity. It could be more efficient by adding a clearer purpose without increasing length.

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?

Without an output schema or additional details, the description leaves uncertainty about what the tool returns. It does not explain 'Indicative axes' or the structure of the output, making it incomplete for a new agent.

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 schema describes the parameter. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the data is grouped by instrument and desks sorted by code, which helps the agent understand the parameter's effect.

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 jargon ('Indicative axes') and does not clearly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, list, display). It hints at grouping and sorting but lacks a verb indicating the action.

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 siblings like 'directory' or 'instruments'. The note about firm prices being in conversations is a constraint but not a usage recommendation.

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 exist, so description must convey all behavioral traits. It explains the core operation (replay frames since seq) and stateless nature, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or response format. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with the action 'replay conversation transcript frames' and immediately provides additional context about stateless polling. Every word 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core purpose and parameter hint but lacks details on output structure, potential errors, and differentiation from similar siblings like 'conv_status'. It provides the essential context but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 50% (only 'since' has a description). The description indirectly explains 'conv' as the conversation identifier and ties 'since' to a sequence number, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, 'conv' is not explicitly documented, so some ambiguity remains.

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?

Description clearly states it replays conversation transcript frames since a given seq, identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from websocket alternative and sibling tools by mentioning stateless polling.

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?

Mentions it is a stateless polling alternative to the websocket, guiding when to use this tool instead of a persistent connection. However, no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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. It implies the tool is read-only and returns a complete audit trail ('nothing is hidden'), but does not explicitly state behavior like no side effects, idempotency, or authentication requirements. The 'carrier rule 5' hint adds context but is vague.

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 that immediately states the purpose and scope. It is front-loaded and concise, with no superfluous words. The parenthetical adds a touch of personality without harming clarity.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete, stating the content (revocations of dealing codes and mandates) and that it is an audit trail. However, it does not specify output fields, ordering, or pagination, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what the tool returns, fulfilling the parameter semantics dimension adequately.

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 identifies the tool as providing a historical log of revocations for dealing codes and mandates, explicitly stating 'audit trail of who lost authority when'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mandates' which presumably show current mandates. However, the verb 'Published' could be more direct like 'List' or 'Get'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'mandates' or 'instruments'. The description does not specify prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when not to use it.

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 provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions signing locally and routing, but does not disclose error states, idempotency, or irreversible consequences of sending. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and add relevant context about agent-native dealing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 complex nested object and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the input and action but omits response format or error handling, which would be needed for full guidance.

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% with a detailed description of the 'envelope' parameter structure, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 submits a signed CALL envelope to the wire, using specific verb 'submit' and resource 'signed CALL envelope'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_env' by specifying CALL-specific structure.

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 use for sending CALL envelopes via MCP, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'send_env' or conditions to avoid. The phrase 'MCP is the sole surface' suggests exclusivity, but no exclusions are given.

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 provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, destructive nature, or safety implications beyond stating it submits to the wire. The agent lacks context on whether this is a read or write operation.

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 with no fluff. The list of envelope types is a bit lengthy but necessary for clarity. Overall concise and well-structured.

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 does not explain the output or return value, lacks details on error conditions, and does not cover prerequisites or constraints. Given the complex nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete.

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 parameter 'envelope' has 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds that the conversation (conv) is parsed from the signed body, providing value beyond the schema, but it's minimal.

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 explicitly states the tool submits a signed envelope and lists the valid envelope types (QUOTE/OFF/MINE/YOURS/DONE/CONFIRM/CHAT/CHECKING/END/HALT/KEY/PICKUP/DECLINE), distinguishing it from the sibling 'send_call' tool which handles calls.

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 sending signed envelopes with specific types but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'send_call' or other communication tools.

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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool provides, not side effects, idempotency, or return format specifics. Given zero parameters, the behavior is simple but not explicitly stated as read-only.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key information.

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?

Considering no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the content (markdown specification). It could be slightly more explicit about usage context, but is sufficiently complete for a simple documentation tool.

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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details, so a baseline score of 4 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 the tool provides the ODW protocol specification, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools, but lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', making it slightly less 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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?

Description notes prints are anonymized and double-confirmed, and mentions sealed prints surface via a specific block. However, without annotations, it does not fully disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.

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 sentences pack all necessary information: first lists output fields, second adds nuance about sealed prints. No redundant words, front-loaded with 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?

Simple tool with one parameter, no output schema. Description lists return fields and covers edge case of sealed prints. Minor omission: doesn't specify ordering or the meaning of 'double-confirmed', but overall sufficient for the simplicity.

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 'limit' is already fully described in the schema with 'max prints (default 50)'. The description does not add any new meaning or formatting details beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves anonymized prints of double-confirmed deals, listing specific output fields (ts, instrument, qty, price, deal_id, tid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'about' or 'instruments' which serve different purposes.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or compare to sibling tools like 'montage' or 'join'.

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