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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation with 'Reads only; it never spends' and adds semantic context about the price not being permission ('your ceiling comes from your principal'). It also notes it reads directly from the chain, implying fresh data. No contradiction with annotations. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations, though it doesn't cover error cases 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then input clarifications, output format, and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with zero fluff, making it concise and well-structured.

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 (two parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, inputs, output format (decimal string), and read-only nature. It lacks explicit error handling or rate limits, but for a simple query tool, the description is reasonably complete. An output schema exists, so detailed return structure is not required.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (vaultId as 0x-prefixed object id, contentKey as vault-scoped key, not a post id). The description repeats these points but adds no new information about parameter usage or format. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds marginal value, so a 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 states a specific verb (ask/quote) and resource (gated content price), explicitly clarifies it reads from the chain, and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it takes vault id and content key, NOT a post id. This clearly differentiates it from tools like weir_read (reading content) or weir_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?

The description clearly indicates the tool is for quoting prices and specifies the exact inputs (vaultId, contentKey), including a caution that post ids cannot be resolved on this deployment. While it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it. It provides clear context but lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance.

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