EconomyOS

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses it's a read-only check ('No payment') and returns remainingSpend. No hidden effects or destructive actions.

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 fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose and key constraints. Every word 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?

No output schema but description specifies return value 'remainingSpend'. Parameters are well explained. Adequate for a non-mutating 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% but description adds context: amount is optional, explains mandate check logic, and clarifies that amount checks against spend cap. Adds value beyond 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 it checks authorization of a grantee for an action under a mandate, with optional spend cap check. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_mandate' which retrieves mandate details.

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?

Describes when to use (check authorization, live + correct grantee + scope) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. The context is clear enough for typical use.

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. The description discloses it is a read operation ('read on-demand from AgentRegistry attestations'), mentions no payment, and describes result content (trust label, reputation score, per-call cap). This is good behavioral context for a read tool, though it could mention idempotency or side effects explicitly.

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 few sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then result details, filter options, and usage hint. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it is concise and clear.

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?

No output schema, so the description explains result content (trust label, reputation score, per-call cap). It covers all filter options and usage context. No required parameters, so no prerequisites needed. Fairly complete for a search tool, though pagination or result size could be mentioned.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds that filtering is possible by category, chain, tier, or search string, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions (e.g., 'q' is substring match, 'tier' enum, etc.). 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 'Discover community primitives from the Primitive App Store' and distinguishes from sibling tool 'economyos_pay_primitive' with the instruction 'Use before economyos_pay_primitive.' The verb 'find' aligns with the tool name, and resource is well-defined.

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 explicitly says 'Use before economyos_pay_primitive,' providing a clear when-to-use hint. It also lists filter options (category, chain, tier, search string) and mentions no payment. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is adequate for selecting the tool.

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 bears full burden. It states 'Read' (non-destructive) and 'No payment' (free). For a simple read operation, this is adequate but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, 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?

Single sentence with zero wasted words. Front-loads action and resource. Perfectly concise for a simple 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?

For a tool with 1 parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input, and output expectations. No obvious gaps.

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 one parameter described as 'Agent id or controller address.' The description reinforces this and adds the returned fields (controller, metadataHash), providing 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?

Description clearly states 'Read an agent identity record' with specific fields (controller, metadataHash) and the lookup method (by agent id or controller address). It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools that target different entities.

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?

Description implies use to read agent identity but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'No payment' hints at cost but is not a comparative guideline. No alternatives 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'List' implying a read-only operation and 'Free' but does not explicitly declare read-only, idempotency, or potential side effects. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 packed with essential info: verb, resource, network types, optional filter, default, and cost. No fluff, front-loaded effectively.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers usage. It lacks details on pagination or result format, but these are reasonable omissions for a simple list tool with low 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 coverage is 100% and its description matches. However, the description adds value by explaining that the parameter can be a numeric asset id (EVM) or mint address (Solana), and defaults to the agent. This extra context aids understanding 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 'List' and resource 'assets an address owns', specifying two types (ERC-721 NFTs on EVM, Metaplex NFTs on Solana). It distinguishes from sibling tools like economyos_get_balance or economyos_get_coin by focusing on assets.

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 context: defaults to the agent, free, and optional single asset lookup by id or mint address. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but siblings cover different resource types so confusion is minimal.

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, description must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read operation and adds 'No payment' for cost transparency. However, it does not mention authorization requirements or error handling.

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 that front-load the purpose and add necessary context. No extraneous text.

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 read with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers core purpose, default, and no-cost aspect. Adequate for agent decision-making.

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 parameter description. The description adds the defaulting behavior, but this is already implied in the schema. 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 verb 'Read' and resource 'USDC balance', and specifies a default behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which are balance reads.

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?

Specifies default address and that there is no payment, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling differentiation is clear from 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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'Read' and 'No payment,' but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or return format. The behavioral disclosure is insufficient.

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 short sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and scope. However, it could include a bit more detail without harming conciseness.

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 read operation with one parameter, the description is adequate. However, the absence of an output schema means the description should hint at the return structure; it does not. Compared to the many sibling 'get' tools, it does not differentiate itself enough.

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 covers the single parameter 'bountyId' with a clear description ('Bounty id (integer string)'). The tool description adds no further parameter information. With 100% schema coverage, the 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 it reads a bounty's reward, deadline, and claims. The verb 'Read' and the phrase 'No payment' specify the operation and distinguish it from payment-related mutations. The name and title align well with the description.

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?

Only minimal guidance is provided via 'No payment,' which hints at non-financial use but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over sibling 'get' tools (e.g., get_escrow, get_mandate). No prerequisites or context of use 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?

The description indicates a read operation ('Read') and mentions 'No payment,' implying safety. However, without annotations, it fails to explicitly state no side effects, permission requirements, or whether the call is idempotent.

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: two sentences front-loading the action and scope. Every word adds value, and the 'No payment' note is a helpful behavioral hint.

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 lists returned fields (name, symbol, supply, price, balance, nonce), making it fairly complete. Minor omission: no mention of prerequisites or whether the coin must exist.

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% for the single parameter 'coin', but the description adds value by explaining the data returned (balance, nonce) beyond the schema's generic 'Coin contract address.'

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 reads a coin's name/symbol/supply/price, and includes agent's balance and permit nonce. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_*' tools that target other resources (e.g., agent, balance, 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., economyos_get_balance). The description does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit usage 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that credentials are verifiable offline and free, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or error 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?

The description is concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 list operation with one parameter, the description provides sufficient context: credential types, format, and usage. It lacks details on the return structure (e.g., array format) but is generally 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single required parameter. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema's description of the DID format.

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 ('List') and the resource ('Verifiable Credentials held under an agent DID'), with specific reference to the DID format and credential types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_passport' by focusing on credentials.

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 use case ('vet a counterparty's track record') and notes the tool is free. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'No payment,' indicating no cost. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but it doesn't explicitly confirm idempotency or data freshness. Additional context on scoring method or latency would be helpful.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Highly concise and efficient.

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 explains the output (one score, union of per-chain activity) but lacks details on return format, possible errors, or how 'canonical' is determined. Adequate for a simple tool, but could be more 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% with the parameter 'did' described as 'did:eos:agent:<id>'. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema, so 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 action (get reputation), the resource (agent DID), and the scope (canonical cross-chain reputation, one score). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's the canonical version and that no payment is required.

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 need the overall cross-chain reputation for a DID. The 'No payment' note clarifies it's freely accessible. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_did_reputation_v2.

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: chain-neutral, no RPC, returns 404 if not enabled, and no payment. It does not mention side effects (assumed read-only) or authentication needs, but covers the main 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero redundancy. Every word adds value, explaining the computation basis, chain-neutrality, preconditions, and payment status.

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 explains what the reputation is based on and a key error condition. It lacks details on return format (no output schema), but for a simple single-parameter tool, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 sole parameter 'did' has a brief schema description ('did:eos:agent:<id>'). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline.

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 computes reputation from Verifiable Credential sets, distinguishing it from the sibling 'economyos_get_did_reputation' by specifying v2, credential-based, chain-neutral, and no RPC. It effectively identifies the 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 provides context for when to use this tool (credential-based reputation vs. on-chain scan) and notes a precondition (server must enable reputation-v2). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is clear enough for selection.

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 correctly identifies the tool as a read operation ('Read') and states 'No payment,' indicating no cost. It lists the fields returned (opener/respondent/arbiter, subject, stake, status, ruling), providing useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or error cases.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key return fields. No extraneous information. Every word 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?

The tool has one required parameter and no output schema. The description lists the main fields of the dispute, giving the agent a good idea of what to expect in the response. It does not specify edge cases (e.g., invalid disputeId) but is otherwise complete for a simple read 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 100% for the single parameter 'disputeId', with the schema already describing it as 'Dispute id (integer string)'. The description does not add any additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, so 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 'Read an Arbitration dispute' with a specific list of fields (opener/respondent/arbiter, subject, stake, status, ruling). This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools which target different resources (e.g., economyos_get_agent, economyos_get_bounty).

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'No payment' implies a read-only operation, but alternatives or prerequisites are not mentioned. Since there is no sibling tool for disputes, the usage context is clear but still lacks explicit direction.

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 explicitly states 'Read' (idempotent) and 'No payment' (no side effects). Lists return fields but doesn't mention error handling or authentication requirements.

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?

One sentence, zero waste. Front-loads the action and lists key fields. Every part 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?

No output schema, so description must explain return values. It lists the main fields (payer/payee/arbiter, amounts, timeout terms) and clarifies it's a read operation. Lacks mention of additional metadata like escrowId in response, but sufficient for a simple read 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'escrowId'. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema's 'Escrow id (integer string)'. 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'EscrowRouter escrow', lists specific fields (payer/payee/arbiter, deposited/released/refunded/remaining, timeout terms) and explicitly says 'No payment'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_invoice.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies use for reading escrow state, but doesn't mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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. It explicitly states this is a read operation (no payment, read-only by nature) and lists the data returned. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits or auth requirements, which are minor for a simple getter.

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-loading the core purpose and adding a clarifying note about no payment. Every word earns its place, no 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned data fields. It could mention the return format or whether it always succeeds, but for a simple configuration getter, 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds value by describing what information is retrieved, which is beyond the schema's empty input.

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 reads configured chain info including contract addresses, USDC, min payment, resolution params, and Pyth feed ids, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that read individual entities.

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 'No payment' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like economyos_get_market or economyos_get_contract. It implies usage for obtaining global chain configuration, but lacks when-not or alternative suggestions.

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?

'Read' and 'No payment.' clearly indicate a non-destructive, read-only operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden and adequately discloses the behavioral trait of being a simple query without 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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The description is efficiently front-loaded with the action and key details.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, what is returned, and the non-payment nature. No further detail is needed given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'invoiceId' described as 'Invoice id.' The description adds the list of fields returned, but that does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 explicitly states it reads an invoice and lists the fields returned (issuer, payer, amount, dueBy, status). 'No payment.' clearly distinguishes it from payment-related tools. With no sibling invoice tool, purpose is 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 this is for reading invoice state, not for payment, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like economyos_check_mandate or other get tools. Usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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. Discloses read-only nature and lists fields returned, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or potential 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?

One tight sentence with key information front-loaded. No wasted words, efficiently communicates purpose and scope.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential details. Could be slightly more explicit about return format, but it lists fields.

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?

Single parameter 'mandateId' with schema description that matches the description text. No additional meaning added beyond what schema provides; baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'scoped-delegation mandate', listing key fields (grantor/grantee, scope hash, spend cap, etc.). Distinct from sibling 'check_mandate' by focusing on reading state.

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?

Only mentions 'No payment' as a guideline. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with sibling tools like 'economyos_check_mandate'.

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 the burden. It discloses that the tool reads market state and agent shares, and 'No payment' implies it is a safe, read-only operation without side effects, though permissions or rate limits are not mentioned.

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 with essential information, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the core action and components.

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 lists key return fields (outcomes, curves, pot, resolution, agent's shares), which is sufficient for understanding what is retrieved. It lacks error or limitation details but is adequate for a simple read 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%, meeting baseline. The description adds context that marketId identifies the market, but provides no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 reads 'OutcomeMarket's state' and lists specific components (outcomes, curves, pot, resolution) plus agent's shares, distinguishing it from sibling 'get_*' tools focused on other resources.

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 'No payment' hinting at cost, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives or prerequisites. The sibling tools cover different resources, making usage somewhat implicit.

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, but the description discloses it's free and highlights Solana NFT behavior. It implies read-only operation ('Read... card') and provides context about the NFT being a real Metaplex NFT once minted.

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 with no fluff; the first sentence front-loads the primary functionality and return fields, the second provides important context. Every part 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?

For a simple getter tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main return components (identity, reputation, NFT). It lacks details on error cases or default behavior when passport doesn't exist, but is largely sufficient.

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 single parameter 'idOrAddress' is already described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds a default behavior ('defaults to this agent'), but does not add further semantic 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 it reads an agent's Passport card with specific fields: identity, reputation, and NFT details. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it returns all passport data in one call, unlike separate tools like get_agent or get_reputation.

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 indicates it defaults to this agent and is free, implying it's the primary tool for passport data. It suggests using this instead of multiple calls ('ONE call'), but doesn't explicitly list when not to use or name 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 exist, so description bears full burden. Describes the operation as 'Read' and notes it is 'Free,' but lacks detail on rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers inputs, default behavior, and suggested usage. Adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description repeats the schema's parameter description ('Agent id or address; defaults to this agent'). Adds no new information 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?

Clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('agent's reputation summary'), and the scope ('by agent id or address, defaults to this agent'). Distinguishes from siblings focusing on other 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?

Provides explicit use case: 'vet a counterparty before trading with them.' Does not directly compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for typical usage.

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 convey behavioral traits. It states 'Read' (safe, non-destructive) and 'No payment' (no cost). However, it omits details like idempotency, rate limits, or whether it requires authentication. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. It wastes no words, but could be better structured with bullet points or a sentence on return format.

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 simple: one parameter, no output schema. The description lists returned fields, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the structure of recipients or the meaning of sharesBps in detail. It is reasonably complete for a straightforward read tool but leaves room for clarification.

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%: the only parameter splitId is described as 'Split id (integer string).' The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, 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 reads a RevenueSplit and lists its key fields (creator, recipients, sharesBps). 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation. While it distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by specifying the resource type, it does not explicitly contrast with any specific sibling.

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 other get_* tools. The phrase 'No payment' hints at cost behavior but does not help an agent decide between alternatives like get_balance or get_coin.

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. It declares the tool is a read operation ('Read') and mentions 'No payment' to indicate no financial action. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error cases. The listed fields are helpful but behavioral transparency is minimal beyond the read-only implication.

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 12 words, extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action 'Read a stream.' Every word serves a purpose, listing the fields and clarifying there is no payment. No wasted text.

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 nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by listing the fields returned. It lacks details on return format or data types, but for a straightforward read operation, it is fairly complete. The absence of annotations is partially compensated by the clear declarative statement.

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 one parameter (streamId) with description 'Stream id.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for this parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no extra value is added.

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 reads a stream and lists the fields returned (sender, recipient, rate, deposit, withdrawn, claimable). The verb 'Read' and resource 'stream' are specific, and the list of fields adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like economyos_get_balance or economyos_get_bounty, which are for other resources.

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 'No payment,' which gives a hint about when to use it (for reading without side effects), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios to avoid. There is no differentiation from other 'get' 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?

The description clearly states that the tool provides a quote without executing payment, implying no mutation. Since no annotations exist, this fulfills the need by making the read-only nature clear.

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 immediately state the tool's purpose, input usage, and a key constraint (no payment). 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?

The description is complete for a simple quote tool, but given no output schema, it would benefit from indicating what the quote response contains (e.g., price, shares). As is, it assumes the caller knows the return format from the bond curve context.

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 description adds semantic meaning by explaining that usdcIn is for buy quotes and shares for sell quotes, and implies they can be used together (or). The schema already describes each parameter, but the description provides usage context beyond individual 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 tool provides exact buy/sell quotes against an outcome's bonding curve, specifying input usage (usdcIn for buy, shares for sell) and noting no payment is made. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are for finding, getting info, etc.

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 clear context for using the tool (when needing a buy/sell quote) and notes no payment occurs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools, though sibling tools cover different use cases.

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. It mentions 'Cross-chain' and 'No payment', but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs, and key characteristics (cross-chain, free). Every piece of information is valuable and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description provides a good overview of what is returned (verification methods, passport, reputation link) and mentions cross-chain behavior. However, it omits details on error cases, output format, or pagination, leaving some gaps for complex 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% and the parameter description in the schema already names the format 'did:eos:agent:<id>'. The description repeats this but does not add 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 it resolves a DID to a W3C DID document, lists specific contents (verification methods, passport, reputation link), and distinguishes from siblings like get_agent or get_passport. It adds 'Cross-chain. No payment.' which further clarifies scope.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly advise when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use this instead of economyos_get_agent or economyos_get_did_reputation). Usage is implied but no exclusions or contrast are provided.

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