agent-board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the paid gate ($0.01 USDC), the concrete failure mode (payment-required error until payment is attached to request _meta), and that settlement only occurs on success. It stops short of describing non-payment failure modes (e.g., not-found, missing fields).

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by payment mechanics in the order an agent needs them. It is dense but every sentence contributes a distinct fact; minor redundancy in restating the price twice ('$0.01 USDC' and 'the same price').

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, failure mode, and an alternate invocation path. The main omission is any indication of the returned listing's shape, but 'full listing including contact details' gives a reasonable signal.

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 0% and there is one required parameter. The description references {listing_id} inside the HTTP URL template, confirming it is the listing identifier, but adds no format, constraints, or example values beyond that incidental mention.

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 and resource ('Get one full listing including contact details'), which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_listings or publish_listing, though 'one full listing' implies by-ID retrieval versus search.

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?

It usefully explains an access-path alternative (plain HTTP with an x402 client) for callers lacking x402 support, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this tool over search_listings or how a caller obtains a listing_id, leaving selection guidance implicit.

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 discloses that publishing is free, rate limited, and priced in USDC, which is real context beyond the schema, but it omits auth requirements, what a successful publish returns, and whether the listing can be modified or removed.

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?

Three short, dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the conditional contact rule packed into the same line. No filler, though the telegraphic 'Free, rate limited' phrasing is clipped enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, cost, rate limit, and contact validation but leaves the ttl_hours expiry semantics, category meaning, and success behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does add key conditional semantics: contact_type 'mcp'/'http' requires an https URL while 'wallet' requires a 0x EVM address, plus the USDC price interpretation. However, it says nothing about ttl_hours (the 168-hour default/expiry) or the category enum, leaving several parameters undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Publish a listing'), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-oriented siblings get_listing and search_listings. It stops short of naming those siblings or contrasting scope, so it is clear but not fully 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling tools (get_listing, search_listings). 'Free, rate limited' hints at operational constraints but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice versus the 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?

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that returns are previews lacking contact details and that the call is free, but says nothing about pagination behavior, auth requirements, or result caps despite limit/offset parameters existing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cost, then return shape and fallback. Every clause carries information with no padding.

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 4-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return shape well but leaves filter/pagination semantics and any behavioral constraints unaddressed. It is viable but has clear gaps for 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 description coverage is only 25% (just the query param), so the description should compensate, but it never mentions category filtering, limit, or offset semantics. The listed preview fields loosely hint at category but give no parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search active listings') and makes the scope explicit ('active'), which separates it from sibling tools. The return-shape sentence further pins down what kind of search this is.

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?

Explicitly routes to 'get_listing' for the full record, giving a clear alternative with a selection condition. It does not state when-not to search (e.g. cost/rate constraints or empty-query behavior), but the core routing guidance is present.

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