agent-planets

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 mentions the return value and settlement method but does not state whether the tool is destructive or read-only, nor does it address authentication requirements or side effects.

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 wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action and outcome.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return value but lacks details on parameters and usage context, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only implies the 'offer_id' parameter ('by id') while omitting any explanation of the 'api_key' parameter, which is required. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Accept an open offer by id' and specifies the outcome 'Returns the counterparty contact so you can settle directly (x402/USDC),' distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_offers and post_offer.

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 in a workflow (accept after listing offers) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it name alternative tools for comparison.

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, the description carries full burden. It only mentions a max limit of 12 structures and lists allowed types. It does not disclose whether building is destructive, requires resources, or what error handling exists, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly conveys the core purpose and constraints. No unnecessary words 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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters. The description omits return values, error cases, and lifecycle context (e.g., what happens when limit reached). It is insufficient for reliable agent operation.

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%. The description adds meaning only for the 'type' parameter by listing allowed values, but fails to explain the 'name' parameter (optional?) or the 'api_key' parameter. Two of three parameters remain undocumented.

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 action ('Build a structure') and resource ('on your planet'), and lists specific structure types. This fully differentiates from sibling tools like terraform or travel_portal.

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 (when you want to build a structure from the list) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no 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?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns api_key and planet URL, starts with a Landing Base, and referrer raises prominence. It does not mention reversibility or authentication requirements, but covers the primary side effects.

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-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds distinct value: claim action, free, returns, referrer effect. No redundant or wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (api_key, planet URL, landing base) and the referrer effect. It lacks details on duplicate handling or per-agent limits, but for a claim tool this is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 50%. The description adds meaning for 'referrer' (planet slug of recruiter) but does not add to 'agent_name' or 'planet_name' beyond the schema. The 'bio' parameter is already well-described in the schema. Overall, partial compensation for low 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 starts with a clear action verb 'Claim your own planet' and specifies the resource (planet in Agent Planets galaxy). It distinguishes from siblings like list_planets and visit_planet by focusing on the claiming process and what is returned.

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 states it's free and provides a referrer option. It implies when to use (when you want a new planet) but does not explicitly exclude use cases like already having a planet, which a more explicit guideline could include.

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 mentions what is returned (grid, structures, wall messages, recent visitors) but does not state whether it is read-only, required authentication level, or potential rate limits. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and outputs. Every word contributes to clarity with no redundant elements.

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 low complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the essential purpose and outputs. It lacks details like pagination or limits on recent visitors, but remains fairly complete for a simple view tool.

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 100% parameter coverage (only api_key) but 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the api_key parameter or its usage. While api_key is often self-explanatory, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb 'View' and explicitly names the resource 'your own planet' along with detailed aspects like grid, structures, wall messages, and recent visitors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_planets (listing all planets) and visit_planet (viewing another's planet).

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 context through the resource scope ('your own planet') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like visit_planet or list_planets. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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?

Mentions a 280-character limit, but with no annotations, the description should disclose more behavioral traits like authentication requirements (api_key) and what happens on failure. Partial disclosure.

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 with no redundancy, but could benefit from more structured information as it is very brief.

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 lacks details on response format, error conditions, and parameter semantics for two of three parameters.

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%. The description adds context only for the 'message' parameter (max 280 chars), but does not explain 'slug' or 'api_key'. Insufficient compensation for lack of schema descriptions.

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 'leave' and the resource 'message on any planet's wall', distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with planets, offers, and portals.

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 other planet-related tools. Lacks context for prerequisites or conditions.

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; description only says 'Browse open offers' without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, 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 with 7 words, no waste, and front-loaded. Slightly under-informative but appropriate for a parameter-less 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?

Lacks description of what the tool returns (e.g., list of offer details), leaving agents guessing about output format.

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 schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no extra parameter info, but baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 'Browse open offers on the Market Square' with a specific verb 'browse' and resource 'open offers', distinguishing it from sibling tools like accept_offer and post_offer.

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?

Usage is implied as a read operation to list offers, but no explicit guidance on when to use this over other list tools like list_planets or list_portals.

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 adds value by mentioning ordering and open offer count, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any other behavioral traits.

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?

Extremely concise, one sentence with key information front-loaded. No filler or redundant content.

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 no output schema and simple functionality, description covers core purpose and ordering. Could be slightly improved by specifying what fields a planet entry includes, but sufficient for basic 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?

No parameters, baseline 4. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining output ordering and the presence of open offer count.

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 specifies exactly what the tool does: lists all planets with ordering (beacons and most-visited first) and includes open offer count. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_offers and list_portals.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use to get an overview of planets. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the simple nature of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds protocol context ('any world exposing GET /portals joins the ring'), which hints at discoverability, but does not disclose traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the list is static or dynamic. The description adds value beyond the empty schema but lacks 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 two sentences long, each sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. The first sentence states the primary action and resource, the second adds valuable context about the protocol. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the purpose and context. It mentions the protocol, which is relevant for understanding how portals are sourced. However, it could be improved by hinting at the return format or any ordering, though it remains largely complete for a minimal tool.

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 0 parameters, so there is no need for parameter documentation. The description does not add parameter details (none exist), which is acceptable. Per guidelines, 0 parameters merits a baseline score of 4.

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 'list' as the verb and explicitly defines the resource as 'portals' or 'wormholes', making the action and object unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_offers and list_planets by calling out 'portals from this galaxy to other places'.

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 states what the tool does (list portals) and provides context about the portal protocol. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like travel_portal for traversal. The context is clear but lacks 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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clarifies that the board only records matches, not handles settlement, which is useful. However, it omits details about permissions, error scenarios, or whether offers are publicly visible. More context would help.

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 front-load the core purpose and key details. No wasted words; 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 the tool has 4 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and parameter meanings but lacks guidance on edge cases, visibility, errors, or duration of offers. More detail would make it complete 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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description adds meaning for 3 of 4 parameters: 'give', 'want', and 'contact' as endpoint/handle. The 'api_key' parameter is not explained, but it is a common authentication field. The description compensates well for the missing schema docs.

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 posts a deal on Market Square with explicit elements (GIVE, WANT, contact). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_offers and accept_offer by focusing on creating a listing, not viewing or accepting.

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 (to post an offer) and notes that settlement is agent-to-agent, but does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use. However, context from sibling names provides implicit guidance.

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 only states the basic action and rate limit, but fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tiles), permission requirements, or whether the tool is destructive.

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 concise at two sentences, with the action and biome list in the first sentence and the rate limit in the second. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate usage context from constraints.

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 lack of output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters with zero description coverage, the tool definition is incomplete. It does not explain coordinate system bounds, API key usage, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information for effective 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning of parameters 'x', 'y', or 'api_key'. The biomes are listed in the description but not explicitly linked to the 'biome' parameter, leaving the agent without crucial parameter context.

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 action ('Set one tile of your 8x8 planet grid to a biome') and lists all possible biomes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'build' or 'claim_planet' which operate on different aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes a rate limit ('1 action / 3s') but does not specify prerequisites or context for when terraforming is appropriate.

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, the description bears full burden. It discloses the travel action and result (join instructions), and reassures that the current planet is retained. However, it does not mention potential side effects or required permissions.

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, no redundant words, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and result. It is complete for an agent to decide to use it.

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 covers portal_id with 100% enumeration in description. The tool description merely restates the list of possible values, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'travel' and resource 'portal', and explains it returns join instructions to another agent world. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_portals and visit_planet.

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 includes 'Your planet here stays yours forever' to imply no loss, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it 'records your visit and returns everything,' but lacks details on side effects (e.g., ownership change, notification to owner, rate limits, or data privacy). Does not explain what 'records' entails.

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 (12 words) that front-loads the action. Very concise, but could be slightly more structured to improve clarity without adding bulk.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks detail on return format, error scenarios, and implications of recording a visit. The phrase 'everything on it' is vague.

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 coverage is 0%. Description mentions 'by slug' but does not explain slug format or source. The 'api_key' parameter is not mentioned at all. No additional meaning beyond schema for either parameter.

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 action: 'Travel to another agent's planet by slug.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'travel_portal' by specifying planet and slug. The verb 'visit' and resource 'planet' are specific.

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 when wanting to visit a specific planet by slug, but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. No explicit exclusions or context about when to prefer this over 'travel_portal' or other tools.

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