ActionGate

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?

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.