ActionGate

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that the tool returns 'current' balance and usage count, confirming no side effects. It is consistent with annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 that conveys all essential information without any extraneous words. It is 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 simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (balance and usage count). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's function completely.

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 100% with a clear description for the api_key parameter. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 ('Return') and the specific resource ('prepaid credit balance and usage count') for an ActionGate API key. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like top_up (replenishes balance) and risk_score (assesses risk), making its 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 when needing to check current prepaid credit and usage. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the straightforward purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it for balance queries.

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?

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds significant value by disclosing the payment model (x402/credits) and rate limits (10/day) that are absent from structured fields. It also clarifies the ternary outcome behavior specific to this gate.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose (application and return values), followed by billing model, then rate limits. Every sentence carries distinct operational information critical for agent invocation decisions.

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 5-parameter treasury policy tool with nested objects, the description adequately covers the domain (treasury policy), return behavior (three states), and operational constraints (billing/rate limits) despite lacking an output schema. Missing only error-handling details or limit structure specifics.

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 parameters are fully documented in structured fields. The description mentions 'proposed action' and 'treasury policy' which map to schema fields but adds no semantic depth, format examples, or validation rules beyond the baseline. With full schema coverage, score 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 uses specific verb+resource ('Apply treasury policy') and clarifies scope ('to a proposed action'). It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by specifying the three possible return values (allow, deny, allow-with-limits) that differentiate it from risk_score (numeric) and simulate (execution preview).

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 crucial billing context ('Paid via x402 or API key credits') and rate limiting ('Free tier: 10 policy gate calls/day'), which constrains when the tool can be used. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over risk_score or simulate (e.g., when needing binary enforcement decisions vs risk quantification).

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?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context about prepaid credits and email ownership. However, it does not clarify whether multiple calls create multiple keys or return the same key, which could be ambiguous given the idempotent hint.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Provision', and contains no superfluous information. Every word is necessary.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main action and key details. However, it could mention the expected output (e.g., the API key) or error conditions.

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 100% and the schema already describes the email parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond echoing the schema's description of the email being the owner.

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 provisions a prepaid ActionGate API key with $1.00 starter credits for an operator email. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the unique resource and action.

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 needing a new API key for an operator email, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'top_up' or 'balance', nor does it provide conditions 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?

Adds critical operational context beyond annotations: billing mechanism (x402 or API credits) and rate limits (20/day free tier). Annotations adequately cover safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), though description omits return value structure.

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 tightly focused sentences with zero waste: first establishes core purpose, second covers operational constraints (billing/limits). Front-loaded structure ensures immediate comprehension.

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?

Adequate for basic invocation but has gaps: no description of the risk score output format/range despite absence of output schema, and no explanation of what risk dimensions are evaluated (financial, security, etc.) for the complex passthrough action payload.

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 100%, with all four parameters (actor, action, context, request_id) fully documented in structured fields. Description adds no parameter-specific semantic guidance, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Specific verb 'Score' with clear resource 'risk' and scope 'of a proposed agent action before execution'. The temporal qualifier 'before execution' naturally distinguishes it from post-execution analysis and likely distinguishes it from sibling simulate (which would model execution) and policy_gate (which would enforce rules).

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 temporal context 'before execution' indicating when to invoke. However, lacks explicit comparison to siblings (simulate, policy_gate) regarding when to prefer risk scoring versus simulation or policy checks.

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?

Adds significant operational context absent from annotations: payment model (x402/API credits) and rate limits (20/day free tier). Clarifies return value types (cost, risk, side effects) despite no output schema. Does not contradict readOnlyHint=true; 'estimate' verb reinforces non-mutative 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?

Three tightly constructed sentences with zero redundancy. Purpose front-loaded first, followed by payment mechanics and rate limits. Every clause delivers essential information for tool selection and invocation.

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?

Compensates for missing output schema by documenting return categories (cost, risk, side effects). Covers authentication and rate limiting. Could strengthen by explicitly noting this is dry-run/simulation behavior (though implied by 'estimate'), but strong given parameter complexity and annotation coverage.

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 100% with complete descriptions for all 4 parameters (actor_id, wallet_address, action_type, etc.). Description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but baseline 3 is appropriate when schema documentation is comprehensive.

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?

Excellent specificity with concrete outputs (cost, failure risk, side effects) and clear resource (proposed action). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'risk_score' (which likely returns a score metric) and 'policy_gate' (which likely enforces rules) by positioning this as an estimation/simulation tool.

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 operational constraints (payment via x402/API credits, 20 calls/day free tier) but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'risk_score' or 'policy_gate'. Does not state prerequisite conditions or execution timing (e.g., 'call before executing transaction').

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?

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the tool produces a link for a human operator (not an automated action). Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) align with this. No contradictions, and the description adds context beyond annotations.

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 front-loads the purpose and action. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and human-in-the-loop aspect. It could mention the returned value (the checkout URL) for completeness, but given the openWorldHint and lack of output schema, it 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 100%, so the input schema already describes both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning or syntax details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 clearly states the tool generates a Stripe Checkout link for adding prepaid credits to an existing API key. It uses specific verbs ('Generate', 'add') and resource ('ActionGate API key'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., request_api_key, balance) which serve different purposes.

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 the tool is used when the human operator needs to add prepaid credits, which is distinct from other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, leaving room for improvement in guiding tool selection.

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