ResolutionRelay API Search

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the output ('live count', 'capability families') and implies a read-only nature. However, it does not disclose any potential impact, rate limits, caching behavior, or data freshness guarantees beyond 'live'. For a stat tool this is adequate but not proactive.

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 (12 words) that leads with the key action and outputs. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless stats tool.

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?

The description names the returned data elements (count, families) but does not specify their structure, types, or format (e.g., JSON object with integer and array). Given no output schema, more detail would help an agent parse the response reliably. However, the tool's simplicity partially mitigates this 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe; it correctly omits unnecessary detail.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and identifies two distinct resources: 'live SELLABLE API count' and 'capability families searchable through this server'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_api (returns details of a specific API) and search_apis (performs search queries). The purpose is immediately understood without 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description only states what it returns, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used for aggregate statistics. A clear 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' statement is absent, which is a gap given the presence of related tools.

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 carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, read-only nature, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if slug is invalid). It only states what is returned without depth.

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 conveys the core function without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's 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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat adequate for a simple retrieval tool. However, it lacks details on return values or side effects, and with 0% schema coverage, more context would help, such as listing what metadata/schemas are included.

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%, meaning the schema itself does not explain the parameter. The description mentions 'slug' but does not elaborate on its format, source, or validation rules beyond the regex pattern in the schema. The pattern in schema provides some guidance, but the description adds minimal 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 clearly states it retrieves metadata and schemas for a specific ResolutionRelay API slug. It specifies the input comes from 'search_apis', linking it to a sibling tool. However, it could be more explicit about what 'metadata' includes.

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 after calling search_apis to get a slug, providing a clear use sequence. It does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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?

There are no annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. The description does not disclose important aspects like whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires any payment authorization (given 'x402-payable'), or what happens on no matches. It also doesn't mention any pagination or consistency guarantees for the search results.

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 is clear and front-loads the key action: search by need. It is concise without wasting words. However, it could include additional brief context to improve completeness without becoming verbose.

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 output schema and only two simple parameters, the description provides adequate context for what the tool does. However, without annotations or details on return format, the description leaves gaps about the structure of results and the 'x402-payable' meaning, which is a key output feature. Completeness is decent but not fully self-contained.

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 100%, so the schema provides good documentation for both parameters. The description adds the concept of 'need' and 'x402-payable endpoints and manifests,' which hints at the search's purpose but does not add specific parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 the tool searches a live API inventory by need and returns x402-payable endpoints and manifests. It distinguishes from siblings: 'get_api' likely retrieves a specific API, 'catalog_stats' provides statistics, while this tool searches by a natural-language need. However, 'live API inventory' is somewhat vague and could be more precise.

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 use when you have a need to search for APIs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The sibling tools 'catalog_stats' and 'get_api' suggest this is for discovery, but without saying when you should use one over the other, the agent must infer context.

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