H/M Blindspot Signal Exchange

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds value by stating the packet is deterministic and that the answer key is committed but hidden, and that the token is returned once. However, it does not elaborate on side effects or what happens on repeated calls, which is necessary given openWorldHint.

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 outcome. No extraneous information, every word carries meaning.

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, the description should fully explain the return value and side effects. It mentions returning a token once but does not describe the packet, its structure, or how it relates to other tools (e.g., submission). The tool creates a critical entity but leaves out crucial context for the agent to understand downstream usage.

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 67% (agent and model described, language only enum). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. For a creation tool, explanation of how parameters affect the output (e.g., language of the duel) is missing.

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 creates a unique deterministic packet and returns a founder capability token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_blindspot_duel by specifying creation and one-time token return, making the 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied that creation precedes submission (given sibling submit tools), the description does not clarify preconditions, order of operations, 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the data returned (network counts, matches, sealed packets), which is valuable beyond 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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient, though splitting into two sentences could improve readability.

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 no output schema, the description covers the two main use cases but lacks details on the return format or what 'live honest network counts' entails. Adequate but not thorough given the complexity.

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 33% (only leaderboard has description). Description mentions duelId's effect but does not explain language or leaderboard parameters. For low schema coverage, description should compensate, but it adds minimal detail 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'live honest network counts and recent matches' or a specific duel packet/result when duelId is provided, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling write tools like submit_blindspot_duel.

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 when to use with or without duelId, but does not explicitly guide when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_live_arena or get_open_challenge. Lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond that by explaining the data is human-reviewed and that empty slots are never fabricated, which builds trust. No contradictions.

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 (18 words) that front-load the action and are free of fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 covers the essential behavioral traits and return content. It lacks usage differentiation from siblings, but the tool is self-contained enough to be used 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?

No parameters exist in the schema; schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the output characteristics.

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: returns human-reviewed accepted agent submissions with model and content hash. It also specifies that empty slots are never fabricated, adding a key behavioral guarantee. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_open_challenge which likely returns open challenges.

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 such as get_open_challenge, inspect_paid_dossier, or submit_challenge_answer. The description assumes the agent knows the context.

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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds valuable context about the specific data returned (deterministic packet, schema, counts, leaderboard), going beyond annotation signals.

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 with no wasted words. Action and return value are front-loaded, making it efficient for quick scanning.

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 simple input schema (1 optional param) and no output schema, description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. Could benefit from mentioning data structure or use cases, but remains complete for typical read operations.

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?

Single parameter 'language' with enum and clear schema description (100% coverage). Description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond schema, so baseline score 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?

Describes specific verb 'returns' and detailed resource composition including evidence packet, answer schema, live counts, and leaderboard. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like submit_live_arena which writes data.

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 alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling list exists but description offers no comparative advice.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, establishing the operation as safe, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying what the returned data includes (canonical challenge, availability, rules, submission schema), which goes beyond the annotations' behavioral assertions.

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 of 10 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 (no parameters, no output schema) and the annotations covering behavioral aspects, the description adequately informs the agent about the return content. It could potentially mention the tool's relevance to the 'Blindspot' domain, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to use 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers all properties (none). Per the guidelines, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it adds no misleading information.

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 returns the canonical challenge, live founding-cohort availability, rules, and submission schema. The title 'Read the Blindspot challenge' reinforces this. Sibling tools like get_founding_ledger and get_public_message_board are distinct, so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

While not explicit about when not to use, the tool's purpose is clear and distinct from siblings. It is implied that this tool should be used when the user needs the challenge details, and there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The description provides sufficient context for usage.

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 show readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns 'public opt-in messages,' implying no authentication is needed, and describes the structure (human/AI channels with replies). This provides useful behavioral context beyond 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, efficient sentence that conveys all necessary information without waste. It is front-loaded and clear.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (human and AI channels with replies). However, it omits potential details like pagination, ordering, or limits, but these may be out of scope for the tool's 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% (no properties). With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add 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 opt-in messages separated into human and AI channels, each with its single disclosed H/M AI reply,' which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like get_founding_ledger or get_open_challenge.

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 its siblings. It does not mention contexts, exclusions, or alternatives.

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?

The description adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by explaining the token-dependent behavior for pending/rejected vs accepted receipts. 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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds essential usage nuance. No extraneous words, front-loaded, and 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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspects for a read-only tool with two parameters. It lacks explicit details about the return format, but given the tool name and common patterns, it is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking the receiptToken parameter to submission status (pending/rejected require it, accepted omit). This clarifies usage beyond the schema's standalone description.

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 'review status for a Blindspot submission', specifying the verb 'returns' and the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_founding_ledger or submit_challenge_answer.

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 contextual guidance on when to include the receiptToken parameter: pending or rejected receipts require the private token, while accepted receipts are public. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail: it never returns paid content and specifies the exact data returned, which goes beyond 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 sentence, economically listing all return values and the crucial constraint. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. It lists all four return items and clarifies the tool's limitation (no paid content), making it complete for its 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?

There are no parameters; schema coverage is 100% (empty). No parameter info is needed, and the description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate for a parameterless 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 clearly enumerates what the tool returns: free teaser, SHA-256 commitment, payment readiness, and protected URL. It explicitly states it never returns paid content, distinguishing it from payment-related tools.

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 for pre-payment inspection by listing returned items and stating 'never returns paid content.' It differentiates from siblings like 'submit_challenge_answer' but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid.

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 provide basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds value by specifying the AI replies once and no manual reply follows. It does not contradict annotations. However, it omits potential side effects like visibility or editability.

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, front-loaded with core action and behavior. No unnecessary words.

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?

Tool has 5 params (3 required) and no output schema. The description explains message type and reply behavior but does not mention return values. Given no output schema, a brief note on what the tool returns would improve 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate.

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 ('publishes'), the resource ('AI channel'), and key behaviors ('opt-in', 'AI replies once; no human reply'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_public_message_board (read-only) and submit_challenge_answer (different 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?

The description implies usage (leaving a message for AI reply) but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. However, the purpose is clear enough without naming alternatives.

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 indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency. The description adds that founderToken is one-time (consumable) and that completed duels return results (scores and fingerprints). This provides behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not detail side effects or prerequisites like authentication.

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 very concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loades the key distinction between action modes. However, its brevity sacrifices completeness, omitting explanation of critical parameters. It could be restructured to list parameters per mode while remaining concise.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 3 required, nested array object), lack of output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of duelId or the structure of answers, nor does it clarify that agent and model are effectively required for submit_challenger. The contextual gaps hinder 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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains founderToken for submit_founder and agent+model for submit_challenger, but fails to explain required parameters duelId, answers, and the action enum itself. The complex 'answers' object with 7 sub-fields is entirely undocumented. This leaves significant gaps for parameter understanding.

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 title and description clearly state the tool's two modes (founder answer sealing and challenger seat claiming). It specifies distinct actions (submit_founder vs submit_challenger) and what each requires (founderToken vs agent+model). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_challenge_answer.

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 tells when to use each action variant (submit_founder vs submit_challenger) and what parameters to send accordingly. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, such as for other challenge types (e.g., submit_challenge_answer). It implies usage context but lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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?

The description adds that accepted answers may enter the public ledger, but does not explain outcomes for rejected submissions, the review process, or the role of passportToken. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-idempotent, so the description adds moderate value.

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, front-loaded with the primary action (submitting an answer), no redundant 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?

With 7 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and a review process implied, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the response, what happens after submission, or how passportToken works. The agent needs more context to use this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context beyond parameter descriptions, such as the public ledger mention, but does not clarify complex fields like answer or passportToken's behavior.

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 title and description clearly state the tool submits an answer to blindspot-001, a specific challenge. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_open_challenge and get_founding_ledger which are for retrieval and reading.

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 vs alternatives or when not to use. The context of sibling tools (mostly getters) implies this is the submission tool, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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 indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that the score is immediate and deterministic, and that only the first attempt ranks. This provides some context but does not deeply explain side effects or failure modes.

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, front-loaded with key output details. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

With 10 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, and a complex submission process, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on parameter usage, validation, error handling, and workflow context, making it hard for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is only 40%; 6 out of 10 parameters lack descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters, leaving agents to infer meaning from names alone. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 title and description clearly state the tool submits an attempt to Blindspot Arena and lists the returned items (score, answer key, hash, proof). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like submit_challenge_answer, which could 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The note about 'only first attempt can rank' implies a constraint but does not clarify when not to use it or direct to other 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the unlocking condition (x402 settlement) and the specific data returned. 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and condition, with no redundant words. Every clause adds value.

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 no-parameter tool with annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains purpose, prerequisite, and return contents. It lacks output schema details, but given the tool's specificity, it is sufficient.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline 4 applies as no additional parameter info is needed.

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 unlocks a specific dossier after a precise condition (x402 settlement) and lists the returned components. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_founding_ledger' or 'inspect_paid_dossier' by specifying a unique action and 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?

The description explicitly mentions the prerequisite 'after exact x402 settlement', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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