Treat Rocks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses read-only behavior, absence of side effects, and what is returned (recent rocks plus aggregate stats). It doesn't mention potential errors or auth requirements, but for a simple read-only browse, this is adequate and honest.

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 core purpose, followed by the key behavioral qualifier and return contents. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. Excellent structural efficiency.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and return value content. It explains the ordering (recently minted), the parameter effect, and the additional stats, making it self-sufficient for an agent to 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?

The schema already describes the `limit` parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the limit applies to returned rocks and that aggregate stats are additionally included, which is not explicit in the schema. This enriches the semantic understanding without duplication.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Browse recently minted Treat.rocks rocks'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings (buy_rock, gift_rock, get_rock) by explicitly stating it is read-only and for browsing recent items, not for individual retrieval or transactions.

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 strong contextual guidance by stating 'Read-only — no purchase, no wallet, no confirmation needed,' which clearly signals when not to use this tool (for transactions) and implies it is for exploration. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for purchasing, gifting, or fetching a specific rock, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains that calling the tool does not charge the user, what it returns (price, asset, network, endpoint), and the subsequent step to complete the purchase. It also discloses the product's nature (novelty, not an investment), the fixed price, the x402 protocol on base, the lack of refunds, and the final response containing the rock and a share block. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 moderately verbose (4 sentences) but every sentence adds relevant context, such as the novelty nature, payment protocol, and the fact that the tool does not charge. It is front-loaded with the user-facing purpose ('Buy yourself a Treat.rocks rock') and then clarifies the actual behavior. While it could be trimmed slightly, the playful tone matches the product and information is dense.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers the payment workflow, pricing, network, asset type, refund policy, and the exact next step for the user. It even explains what the retried request returns. There is no missing context that would prevent an agent from using the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist; it instead focuses on behavioral context, 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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns payment requirements for a Treat.rocks rock rather than directly purchasing it. However, the verb 'Buy' in the opening and the tool name 'buy_rock' initially suggest an actual purchase, which is misleading until the clarification that 'Calling this tool does NOT charge you.' Despite this, the description explicitly defines the output (payment requirements) and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on the purchase workflow rather than browsing, getting, or gifting.

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: call this tool to obtain payment requirements, then pay those requirements and POST to the same endpoint to complete the purchase. It provides a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_rock or gift_rock, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 transparency burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior, absence of purchase/confirmation, and the contents of the return (full attributes, signed certificate, standing purchase block), giving a clear behavioral contract beyond the schema.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then elaborates with return details and behavioral caveats. Every clause adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately specifies what the tool does, what it returns, and its read-only nature. It covers all essential context an agent needs for invocation and result interpretation, without missing critical 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a descriptive explanation for the id parameter, including where to find one. The tool description only restates 'by its id' without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric for high 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 description clearly states a specific action ('Look up one specific Treat.rocks rock by its id') and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing read-only lookup versus browsing, buying, or gifting. The verb and resource are precise, leaving no ambiguity.

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 this tool (when you have a specific rock id) and contrasts with purchase actions by stating 'no purchase, no confirmation needed.' The id parameter schema mentions 'from browse_gallery or a shared rock URL,' indicating a source for ids, but explicit alternatives are not named.

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 takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that calling the tool returns payment requirements and does NOT charge the user, that the recipient is recorded as owner while the caller remains buyer, and that it's not an investment but a joke. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior agents need to know.

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 five sentences long, each adding value: purpose, ownership roles, joke context, no-charge behavior, and next steps. It is somewhat dense but not bloated. It could be slightly tightened, but the complexity of the gifting flow justifies the 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns ('exact payment requirements') and the full workflow (pay and POST with recipient address). It also covers the distinction between buyer and owner, and sets expectations with the joke disclaimer. This is a complete picture for a tool with a single parameter and no annotations.

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 schema description for recipient_address is 100% coverage and already explains it's a 0x address minted to. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning, only reinforcing that the address is for the recipient. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score 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 'Buy a Treat.rocks rock for another agent', which is a specific verb+resource+recipient. It also distinguishes from buy_rock by noting the recipient is different ('instead of your own') and that the recipient is recorded as owner.

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 this tool by emphasizing 'for another agent' and 'instead of your own', contrasting with the likely buy_rock sibling. It also provides crucial usage guidance: calling the tool does not charge you, and you must complete the purchase by paying the returned requirements and POSTing to the endpoint. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., 'buy_rock for yourself'), so it stops short of fully explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance.

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