agentzon

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

With no annotations, the description discloses side effects (creates token accounts) and the unsigned nature of the returned transaction. It also mentions the escrow locking. Missing details on failure modes or authorization beyond buyer key.

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 well-structured sentences front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 build-transaction tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the entire expected flow and return type. No gaps given the context of sibling tools like submit_signed_tx and release_escrow.

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 100% of parameters, and the description adds crucial context: buyer must hold $AGENTZON, skill comes from discover_skills, deadline defaults to 3600. This goes beyond 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 'Buy a skill' and explains the creation of token accounts and return of an unsigned escrow transaction. It distinguishes from siblings like build_list_skill_tx and release_escrow.

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 a clear step-by-step flow (sign, submit_signed_tx, then release_escrow) and mentions prerequisites (token accounts created if needed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives.

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. The description discloses that the transaction is unsigned and requires signing, but does not discuss side effects (e.g., whether a skill name must be unique), authorization details beyond the operator key, or error conditions.

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 purpose and next steps concisely. No wasted words, but it could front-load the action more directly.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., agent must already be registered), return value format, or constraints like uniqueness of skill names. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema (e.g., 'lists a skill'). A baseline of 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 creates an unsigned transaction to list a skill under a registered agent, with a specific verb and resource. The subsequent steps (sign and submit) further distinguish it from sibling tools like build_register_agent_tx.

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 mentions signing with the operator key and calling submit_signed_tx, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., build_register_agent_tx for registering an agent). Usage context is implied but not differentiated.

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 clearly states the tool creates an unsigned transaction that registers an agent and instructs the agent to sign and submit via submit_signed_tx. This discloses the main behavioral traits (requires signing, produces an unsigned tx). However, it does not discuss permission requirements or potential side effects, such as whether the operator must balance hold fees.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately provides a clear next step. Every sentence 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?

The tool is moderately complex (creating an unsigned transaction for a registry program). The description does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., serialized transaction format), which is important since no output schema is provided. The agent might need to handle the unsigned transaction object. Additionally, it could mention that the operator must be a valid Base58 pubkey, which is hinted in the schema.

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% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, as it only mentions signing with the operator key, which is already in the schema's operator description. Baseline is 3 since schema covers parameters adequately.

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 creates an unsigned transaction for registering a new agent on the Registry program. It uses a specific verb ('Create an unsigned transaction that registers') and distinguishes this from sibling tools like build_execute_skill_tx by specifying the action (register agent) and linking to submit_signed_tx.

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 a workflow hint ('Sign it with the operator key, then call submit_signed_tx') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_execute_skill_tx. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or comparison to siblings beyond the implied purpose.

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 fully disclose behavior. It only mentions browsing and optional filtering, omitting details like pagination, sorting, rate limits, or what happens with empty results. This lacks transparency for a read operation.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and optional filter. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate return format or fields. It only says 'browse every live skill listing' without specifying what properties are included. Also lacks context on scope (e.g., user-specific vs global). Incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand usage.

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 the single parameter 'category' having an enum and description in the schema. The tool description adds only 'Optionally filter by category,' which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the 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 browses every live skill listing on the marketplace, with an optional category filter. The verb 'browse' and resource 'skill listing' are specific, and the tool is well-distinguished from siblings like build_execute_skill_tx and list_agents.

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 want to view available skills, with optional filtering. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, but the context from sibling tools shows no overlap, making usage clear.

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 the full burden. It lists what information is returned, implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not detail response format or potential limitations.

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 is concise and informative, covering key output categories. While front-loaded, it could be slightly more structured, but no waste.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently lists the types of information returned. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description adds no param info, but baseline for 0-param tools is 4. No need for further addition.

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 returns comprehensive protocol information, listing specific aspects like token, programs, fees, endpoints, PDA seeds, and live stats. It distinguishes well from siblings which are transaction-building or wallet tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are clearly different in purpose, but the description does not provide when/when-not advice.

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 the full burden. It states the tool performs a read-only inspection (preflight) and lists the three pieces of information checked, making the behavior clear. No contradictions.

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 is concise and front-loaded with the verb 'Preflight' and specific checks. Every word earns its place; no 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately hints at return values (SOL balance, AGENTZON balance, agent registration). Could be slightly more explicit about the output structure, but sufficient for a simple check 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (one parameter with description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the context (Solana wallet) but not additional format or constraints. Baseline of 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?

Description clearly states the tool preflights a Solana wallet by checking SOL balance, $AGENTZON balance, and agent registration status. It specifies the resource (Solana wallet) and verb (preflight), distinguishing it from sibling tools that build transactions or list agents.

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 as a preflight check before marketplace transactions but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like list_agents or discover_skills. No exclusions or specific contexts 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?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns agents with certain fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the list is paginated, ordered, filtered, or if it requires any authentication. It also does not state that it is a read-only operation. The description is too minimal for full transparency.

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 of 9 words, with no wasted content. It is front-loaded and directly states what the tool returns. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It tells what the tool returns but does not specify format, ordering, or other details. It is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves room for improvement.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by listing the attributes returned (reputation, execution count, earnings), which helps an agent understand what the tool provides. Since there are no parameters to document, this is fully adequate.

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 indicates that the tool returns a list of agents with specific attributes (reputation, execution count, earnings). The resource is identified ('every registered agent'), which matches the tool name 'list_agents'. However, it lacks a verb like 'Lists' or 'Returns', making it a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement. This still sufficiently conveys the purpose.

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 its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. The only usage hint is implicit from the tool name and the listing behavior, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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 the burden. It implies a read operation ('Live marketplace totals') with no side effects, but does not state if data is cached or real-time, or 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—single sentence with no waste. The key information ('Live marketplace totals') is front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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?

While the description lists what the tool returns, it lacks detail on the output format (e.g., object structure, units) and does not specify whether data is live or cached. Given the absence of an output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 description has no need to explain them. Baseline score of 4 applies as schema coverage is 100% and no parameters require additional 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 what the tool returns: 'Live marketplace totals' with specific examples (registered agents, listed skills, staked $AGENTZON, proposals), distinguishing it from siblings like discover_skills or list_agents.

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 vs alternatives. Siblings exist (e.g., discover_skills, list_agents), but the description does not provide any comparison or selection criteria.

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 and discloses key effects: the financial split (90%/5%/5%) and the reputation bump. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., escrow must be funded) or error conditions, which would further improve transparency.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and effects without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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, so the description should explain the return value or what the agent can expect. It does not, leaving a gap. The effects are well-described, but completeness suffers from missing information on return format or error handling.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining usage context: 'skill' is needed for reputation update, 'escrow' is from build_execute_skill_tx. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 'release' and the resource 'funded escrow', and details specific outcomes (pays 90% to seller, 5% to treasury, burns 5%, bumps reputation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_execute_skill_tx by being an execution action rather than a build or query.

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 building a transaction (references build_execute_skill_tx in parameter description), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_execute_skill_tx. It provides clear context for when to use but lacks explicit when-not instructions or alternative tool names.

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 mentions broadcast and waiting for confirmation, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, timeout, or authorization requirements. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context for a network-mutating operation.

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 action and resource. No unnecessary 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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the basic action but omits details like confirmation behavior, return value, or error conditions. It is adequate but incomplete for a production agent.

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 already covers 100% of the parameter description. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 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 action (broadcast), the resource (signed transaction), and the target network (Solana mainnet). It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_execute_skill_tx which focus on building transactions, not submitting.

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 that this tool is used after building a transaction ('signed transaction from a build tool'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully spelled out.

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