Hilt Pay Agent Commerce

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the financial and temporal aspect (349 USDC, 30 days on Solana) and the prerequisite setup intent. However, it does not outline what 'activate' entails (e.g., does it return a key or modify state?), nor any side effects or authorization needs, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 that convey purpose, cost, duration, and prerequisite. No redundant information; every phrase 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?

Given three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens post-activation, how to handle the delivery_claim or setup_token, and lacks guidance on payment execution (e.g., wallet approval). Essential operational details are missing.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (setup_intent_id, setup_token, delivery_claim). It only hints at setup_intent_id via the prerequisite mention of 'Agent Bootstrap setup intent', but provides no detail on format or purpose of the other fields.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'activate' and the specific resource 'Hilt Pay API growth for 30 days' at a cost of 349 USDC on Solana. The description also mentions a prerequisite (Agent Bootstrap setup intent), which distinguishes it from other activation siblings like hilt_activate_scale.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: to activate growth for a 30-day period at a specified cost. It explicitly mentions a prerequisite (free Agent Bootstrap setup intent), implying that users must complete that step first. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternative tools beyond the prerequisite.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a financial transaction (1250 USDC) and activation but does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, if funds are deducted immediately, or what happens on failure. The delivery_claim parameter is unexplained.

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 with no extraneous information. All essential facts (duration, cost, blockchain, prerequisite) are included without 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 3 required parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, the nature of delivery_claim, or how to obtain the setup_token, leaving critical 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 0%. Description only mentions 'requires a free Agent Bootstrap setup intent', which likely relates to setup_intent_id but does not explain setup_token or delivery_claim. Agents have no information on what these parameters mean or how to obtain them.

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 (activate), resource (Hilt Pay API scale), duration (30 days), cost (1250 USDC), and blockchain (Solana). It differentiates from siblings like hilt_activate_growth by specifying the scale amount and duration, but does not explicitly contrast with other activation levels.

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?

Mentions a prerequisite (requires a free Agent Bootstrap setup intent) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. other activation tools (growth, starter) or any conditions/exclusions.

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 discloses that activation is for 30 days, costs 79 USDC on Solana, and requires a setup intent. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., idempotency, reversibility, what happens if already activated), permissions, or error 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 two sentences and very concise. It front-loads the key purpose, cost, and prerequisite without any wasted words. 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?

Despite having three required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is quite minimal. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or how to obtain the required parameters (setup_token, delivery_claim). More context is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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%, yet the description only minimally explains the parameters. It implies setup_intent_id is the intent from the bootstrap setup, but does not explain setup_token or delivery_claim at all. The description fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 specifies the action (activate), the resource (Hilt Pay API starter), duration (30 days), cost (79 USDC on Solana), and a prerequisite (requires a free Agent Bootstrap setup intent). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like hilt_activate_growth and hilt_activate_scale by naming the specific tier.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires a free Agent Bootstrap setup intent'), implying the agent should use a setup tool first. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like hilt_activate_growth or hilt_activate_scale, nor does it mention 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that this is a sandbox-only operation and that live activation is separate, which are critical behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but for a bootstrap tool this is reasonable.

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, front-loading the purpose and adding critical context about live activation. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 has 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks guidance on return values (intent, key) and does not explain parameter interactions or usage constraints, making it incomplete for proper 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., agent_name, ttl_hours, metadata) or their meanings. This is a significant gap 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 states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'free sandbox setup intent and scoped sandbox key'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like hilt_activate_* by explicitly noting that live activation is a separate paid step, 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?

The description implies usage for free sandbox setup and directly states that live activation is a separate paid step, which helps an agent decide between this and activation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implied 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a high-level action ('recover') without mentioning idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or whether it is destructive. The agent cannot determine safe usage from the description alone.

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 that gets to the point quickly without extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, its brevity trades off needed detail, making it incomplete.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not cover parameter semantics, return values, or behavioral context. The tool complexity demands richer documentation.

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 lists 4 required parameters (setup_token, delivery_claim, setup_intent_id, purchase_intent_id) with validation constraints but no descriptions. Schema coverage is 0% as the description does not explain any parameter. The agent cannot infer what these IDs/tokens represent or how to obtain them.

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 'Recover live API-key delivery after a settled marketplace plan activation' provides a specific verb ('recover') and resource ('API-key delivery'), but the verb is vague ('recover' could mean retry or claim). It does not differentiate from sibling activation tools like hilt_activate_starter or retry mechanisms. The purpose is moderately clear but lacks precision.

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 only loosely implies usage context ('after a settled marketplace plan activation') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned. Sibling tools (e.g., hilt_activate_*) suggest this is a follow-up step, but the description does not clarify.

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 description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'deterministic' and 'without charging', but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or 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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with key action, but could be slightly longer to include critical details without being wasteful.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter explanations, return value format, and behavioral context needed for reliable use.

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 description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (product_url, target_marketplace, product_description, current_payment_flow), providing no added meaning beyond bare field names.

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?

Description clearly states it creates a deterministic quote and recommended buying path without charging, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hilt_get_pricing or hilt_get_offer that likely only retrieve 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?

Description states the action but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to create a quote vs. get pricing or offers.

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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' the catalog, but does not describe whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or any rate limits. No behavioral traits beyond the basic action are disclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is functional and 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the catalog contains, how to interpret the discovery endpoints, or any details about the return value. For a foundational tool, more completeness is needed.

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 provides 100% coverage (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist. Baseline score of 4 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'canonical Hilt Pay agent-commerce catalog and discovery endpoints'. It is distinct from sibling tools like hilt_get_offer and hilt_get_pricing, and explicitly identifies the catalog as 'canonical'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hilt_get_offer or hilt_get_pricing. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read operation ('get') but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This leaves uncertainty for the AI agent.

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 one concise sentence (13 words) that front-loads the verb 'Get' and directly states what is retrieved. Every word is necessary, and there is no 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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only assurance, response format). It is adequate but could be more complete by adding safety or usage notes.

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 no parameters (0 required), and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 retrieves 'Hilt's canonical agent-commerce offer' including specific components (interfaces, products, prices, buying paths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hilt_get_catalog (catalog only) and hilt_get_pricing (pricing only), providing a specific verb-resource combination.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hilt_get_catalog or hilt_get_pricing. The description implies it is for the full offer but does not explicitly state use cases or exclusions.

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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication needs, rate limits). While likely a safe read operation, this is not explicit.

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, no fluff. Information is front-loaded and every word contributes to the purpose.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the return includes (e.g., pricing structure, activation paths format). Current description is too minimal.

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, so description does not need to add meaning. The word 'canonical' hints at authoritative data, which is acceptable.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves canonical pricing and activation paths. It distinguishes from sibling tools like activation-specific tools, but 'activation paths' could be clarified further.

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 such as hilt_get_catalog or hilt_get_offer. The description does not specify context or prerequisites.

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