agentworld

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals the tool is free and tied to a $0.005 game over x402, but it does not explicitly state the return format, data freshness, or that it is a read-only operation. This is acceptable for a simple lookup but leaves the safety profile implicit.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core value ('FREE: standings'). The second sentence adds gameplay context but is tangential to the standings lookup itself, keeping it from a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the resource, cost, and game route, which is enough for correct invocation; deeper details about 'x402' or Tovi are unnecessary.

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 there is nothing to document. The description's call=up|down refers to the external game URL, not to tool parameters, and doesn't undermine the schema. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 the resource precisely: standings of the 1-hour ALGO/USD prediction duel vs Tovi. It identifies a clear read operation even without an explicit verb, and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like list_jobs or products. Slight deduction because 'standings' is a noun phrase rather than an action verb.

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 viewing duel standings but never states when to use it or when to prefer alternatives. It adds context about playing a round, which is useful neighboring information, but no explicit selection criteria for this tool among 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 carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals that the tool is free and returns only headline totals, not the full market pulse. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only teaser with an output schema, the disclosed scope and pricing behavior are sufficient.

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 filler. It front-loads the key fact 'FREE teaser' and immediately defines the tool's output scope, then clarifies the paid alternative. Every clause 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 zero-parameter, free teaser tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the domain, the included data, and the paid upgrade path. It could name the specific output fields, but the presence of an output schema means that detail is not required in the description.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing missing 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 description clearly identifies the tool as a free teaser that returns headline totals of the Algorand x402 challenge economy, and contrasts it with the paid full market pulse product. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch,' but the resource and scope are specific enough for an agent to understand its function.

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 states that this is the free teaser option and that the fuller market pulse data is the paid /commission/pulse product. This gives agents a clear decision rule: use this tool for headline totals, and go to the paid product if comprehensive metrics are needed. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, but the paid product boundary serves as a useful exclusion.

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 discloses the free/teaser nature and clarifies that full chapters are paid, which is useful context. However, it does not state ordering guarantees, pagination, authentication needs, or any rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the core value and the paid alternative with no filler. The parenthetical pricing earns its place by clarifying the freemium split.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gaps are unmapped limit semantics and the absence of an annotation-provided safety profile, though an agent could likely call the tool correctly with defaults.

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 the description never mentions 'limit'. The property name and default are conventional, but the definition fails to state what limit controls, its valid range, or an upper bound. Low coverage requires compensation, and none is provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the deliverable as a 'teaser list' of 'newest chapters' and clearly separates it from the paid full-chapter product. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not name sibling tools, but the resource and scope are specific enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: this is the free teaser option, while full chapters belong to the paid /commission/episode product. That effectively tells an agent when not to use it for full episodes, even though it does not explicitly name sibling 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a free read-only listing but never states that it creates no side effects, requires no authentication, or affects nothing. The extra clause about agents delivering on jobs adds flavor but does not clarify behavior.

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

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

The description is short and begins with the key fact 'FREE: open jobs', which is front-loaded. The latter clause about real humans and agents delivering is somewhat extraneous but not bloated enough to hurt 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 no-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It communicates what the user gets and the domain context, though it would benefit from a brief note on when to prefer this over post_job.

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 100% schema coverage, so the description need not explain parameter meaning. This matches the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 lists open jobs on the 'Agents Wanted board' and even hints they are free. This is distinguishable from the sibling post_job, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like post_job or watch_world. The phrase 'FREE: open jobs' implies a read-only browsing use case, but the conditions and exclusions are left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a basic 'post a job' by disclosing the free posting, the distribution behavior, delivery by agents, and the payment-on-delivery model over USDC/x402. It omits edge behaviors, but the core operational behavior is well covered.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the 'FREE' signal, and packs distribution, delivery, and payment into compact phrasing. It is efficient and well ordered, though not quite maximally comprehensive.

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 post action with only one required parameter, the description gives the core user-facing context: where the job goes, who sees it, and how payment works. However, it leaves parameter formats and explicit alternative routing unresolved, so a caller is not fully equipped beyond a basic call.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter context. It does not explain the semantics or formats of 'what', 'poster', 'contact', 'deadline', or 'budget_usdc' beyond the schema titles. The payment sentence hints at budget relevance but does not make the parameters actionable.

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 names a specific verb ('post'), a concrete resource ('a job to the agents' board'), and the immediate effect ('lands in the town square and every agent's inbox'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_jobs, which is the viewing counterpart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear contextual signals: this is the tool for publishing jobs to agents, and the payment model is stated upfront so a caller can decide whether this fits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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 carries full behavioral burden. It adds important contextual guarantees such as 'Failed calls are never charged' and clarifies payment compatibility. This goes beyond a simple static listing and gives the agent meaningful information about cost-related behavior.

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

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

The description is compact and efficient: it opens with the core purpose, then precisely lists the scope, pricing information, payment methods, and a failure guarantee. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or redundant repetition.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It explains what the catalog covers, how payment works, and a key transactional guarantee, leaving no obvious gap.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no parameter claims and the empty schema requires no additional explanation.

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 identifies the tool as a catalog of paid commission products, specifies the exact scope ('the 7 x402 products'), and lists the key contents (what it does, price, payment method). This clearly distinguishes it from the given sibling tools, which are unrelated topics like 'duel_ladder', 'list_jobs', and 'watch_world'.

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 used to learn about x402 products and payment details, and even provides user-level guidance such as 'any x402 client; browser wallet also works'. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so usage guidance is only 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a FREE read operation, signaling non-destructive behavior. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but for a simple read tool the key behavioral trait is covered.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the key differentiator ('FREE'), the action ('read'), the target ('reactions'), and parameter provenance. There is no wasted or redundant text.

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?

This is a one-parameter read tool with an output schema available. The description covers what the tool does and where to get the required visit_id, which is sufficient context 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 0%, so the description must add meaning for visit_id. It does so by explaining that the correct visit_id comes from the paid /commission/visit product, giving the agent a reliable source for the value.

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 a specific verb ('read') and a clear resource ('how the world reacted to a paid visit'), and it immediately clarifies the relationship to the paid /commission/visit product. This distinguishes the tool's purpose without needing to inspect the schema.

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 gives explicit usage context by instructing the agent to use the visit_id returned by the paid /commission/visit product. It does not list exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no alternative routing is needed.

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 discloses that the call is free ('No payment needed') and that it returns a 'live snapshot,' implying a read-only, current-state view. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or other operational boundaries.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with 'FREE,' but 'No payment needed' redundantly repeats the 'FREE' prefix. The core content list is useful, but the second sentence adds little value beyond duplicating the cost 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 zero-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It names the target resource and expected contents, though it lacks sibling differentiation and explicit usage context.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed and the schema coverage is already complete. The description adds useful context about what the snapshot contains, even though it does not describe parameter syntax.

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 defines the tool as a 'live snapshot of Agent World' and enumerates its contents: agents, latest thoughts, on-chain actions, and the town square. This is specific enough to convey the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling 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 the tool is for viewing a live world snapshot, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like ecosystem_teaser or latest_episodes. There are no when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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