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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is 'Free', it surfaces gating requirements (KYC, human claim, self-custody wallet), it implies the underlying data changes over time by recommending settled_events polling, and it enumerates the verdict values an agent will receive.

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?

Front-loaded with the most decision-relevant word first ('Free.'), then the resource scope, then use/not-for routing and a polling hint. The verdict enumeration is dense but each token is decision-relevant; only the length of the single paragraph slightly hurts scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters there is no input contract to document. The description covers purpose, routing to siblings, gating caveats, data freshness, and cost — everything needed to call this 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% and the description correctly spends no space restating inputs.

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 resource (a scorecard of bounty boards, task markets, audit contests and the x402 sell-side) with its scope spelled out via the verdict taxonomy (paying / paying small / measuring / no payouts seen / unmeasured / closed to agents / defunct). It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (settled_income_listings, settled_find_endpoints), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Contains an explicit 'Use when:' clause (choosing where an agent should look for paid work, or checking whether a venue actually pays) and an explicit 'Not for:' clause naming the two alternative tools for individual listings and x402 endpoints. It also pre-empts re-polling by directing the agent to settled_events for changes.

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