agentic.no

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: probeScore pass/fail semantics and the three-strikes hiding rule, operator distinctions (agentic-pool vs agentic), 503 capacity_starting/capacity_unavailable behavior with Retry-After, explicit 'not charged' guarantees, and automatic x402 USDC-on-Base payment.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then dense with operational detail. It is long and spends several sentences explaining response fields (baseUrl, mcpUrl, probeScore) despite an output schema existing, which is slightly over-budget, but each sentence is substantive rather than 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?

For a tool with a fallback pool tier, async capacity startup, retry protocol and automatic payment, the description covers everything an agent needs to act: pricing model, endpoint construction, failure modes, and cost implications of retries.

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 baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning the schema cannot supply: priceUsdPerCall is a flat per-call fee that already includes maxTokensCap, which is exactly the semantics an agent needs to interpret maxPriceUsd correctly.

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 first sentence states a specific verb, resource and ordering rule: 'Find online sellers serving a model, cheapest first.' It also implicitly separates itself from get_pricing by explicitly declaring 'get_pricing does not apply to the pool row,' so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: avoid agentic-pool rows 'for sensitive data', fall back to the pool row when 'no seller suits you', and how to react to 503 responses. It lacks an explicit comparison to the sibling get_pricing for the normal seller case, only noting where that tool does not apply.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies the meaning of priceUsdPerCall (flat per-call fee, includes maxTokensCap for chat/embedding), which is real value, but it says nothing about whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what the response contains beyond that one field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the resource statement is front-loaded before the field clarification. Efficient, though the second sentence is a dense aside that could be structured more clearly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description appropriately avoids duplicating it. However, given a lone undocumented parameter and an unnamed sibling tool, the description does not provide enough context for confident tool selection and 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?

There is one parameter (sellerId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it beyond the phrase 'one seller.' The mapping from sellerId to 'the seller whose offers are returned' is inferable but not documented, leaving the sole parameter's semantics under-specified.

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 says 'All offers from one seller,' which conveys the resource (offers/pricing scoped to a seller) but never states an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve.' It is distinguishable from find_provider by resource, but the purpose is implied rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to call this versus find_provider, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The only usage signal is the implicit 'one seller' scoping, which is not framed as a condition for selection.

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