loadbay

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the unknown-slug fallback that returns nearest matches instead of erroring, plus the fact that a shareable loadbay.xyz page is produced.

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 names the action, the identifier, its source, the returned fields, and the edge-case behavior. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably compensates by listing the fields returned, and it covers the error/fallback path. Minor gaps remain (e.g., whether the page URL is always generated, any rate limits), but an agent has what it needs to call this 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% for the single 'slug' parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds only provenance ('from search_harnesses') and an inline example is already present in the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for one harness in the Loadbay catalog by slug') and enumerates the returned surface (repo, license, stars, language, integrations, traits, summary, shareable page). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_harnesses, which is named as the source of the slug.

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?

It clearly positions the tool downstream of search_harnesses ('slug (from search_harnesses)') and documents the fallback path when the slug is unknown ('returns the closest matches'), which tells the agent the call will not simply fail. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful non-structured fact that each entry carries a harness count, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing ordering or whether the full catalog is always returned.

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 filler; the what-it-returns statement and the routing/next-step guidance are both front-loaded. Every clause 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?

With no input parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries exactly the missing pieces: what the list contains (domains plus counts) and how to continue into search_harnesses. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly introduces no phantom inputs and instead explains how the returned domain key is consumed downstream.

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+resource ('List the domains (categories) in the Loadbay catalog') plus the shape of the result ('how many harnesses each holds'). It also distinguishes itself from search_harnesses by naming the relationship, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing condition: use it 'to browse when the user has no specific query', implicitly excluding the query case and directing it to search_harnesses. It also names the follow-up step ('pass a domain key to search_harnesses'), so the browse-to-search workflow is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine behavior beyond that: result ranking (relevance then GitHub stars), the returned fields (repo URL, license, language, integrations, traits), and the no-filter default (most-starred harnesses). It does not cover edge cases such as empty results or pagination beyond the limit param, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage, return shape, and default behavior following in a logical order. The parenthetical example list is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place for query-matching, so only minor trimming is possible.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing ranking order and returned fields, and it explains the zero-filter default behavior. Combined with full schema coverage and covering annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter (query, trait, domain, integration, limit) is documented inline with examples and enum meanings. The description's param-level content ('All filters are optional') largely echoes the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a concrete verb+resource (find MCP servers / SDKs / agent frameworks) and pinpoints the catalog source (Loadbay's curated catalog). It is clearly separable from siblings like get_harness (single fetch) and submit_harness (write), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('before building an integration from scratch, or whenever the user asks for a tool, plugin, MCP server or harness') and supplies concrete trigger phrasings ('MCP server for Postgres', 'browser automation for agents'). This is actionable routing guidance, not just 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the listing publishes immediately, it is tagged community-added (unverified), and tip addresses require proof of ownership in the repo. It still does not say whether duplicate submissions are rejected or whether a listing can be withdrawn.

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, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Each sentence carries a distinct load: what it does, the hard repo requirement, the optional tip-address rule plus listing outcome.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical constraints (public OSS repo, ownership proof, immediate unverified listing) and the safety profile comes from annotations. The remaining gap is the result of a successful submit — no output schema exists, and the description never says what the agent gets back or how to reference the new listing afterwards.

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% and the schema already documents the license requirement for repo and the loadbay.json/FUNDING.yml/README proof rule for baseUsdcAddress, so the description largely restates structured data. It also introduces a small ambiguity by referring to "a USDC address" without distinguishing baseUsdcAddress from solanaAddress, whose schema semantics differ.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "List a new harness on Loadbay," which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from read-only siblings like get_harness and search_harnesses. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from tip_harness or support_loadbay, which also involve USDC wallet handling and could be conflated with this submission flow.

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?

It gives concrete preconditions for use: the repo MUST be public and open-source, and any tip address must be verifiable in the repo. That routing context is strong. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., there is no update/edit path for an existing listing) or naming an alternative flow.

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?

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, the description explains why a payment tool is read-only: it only 'Returns the payable endpoint,' the agent must GET it with its own x402 wallet, 'Loadbay never holds funds,' and 'your wallet is the payer.' That custody/authorization model is real context the annotations cannot convey and resolves the apparent tension between 'tip' and readOnlyHint.

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 tight sentences with the precondition front-loaded, then the mechanism, then the custody/security note. Every sentence carries load: trigger, return shape, and who pays. 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the call returns a payable endpoint, the next step is a GET from the agent's own x402 wallet, and no custody risk exists. For a one-parameter, low-complexity tool this is 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 single 'amount' parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('tip amount in USD (default 5)'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the payment is a 'USDC tip,' reinforcing the currency from the schema but adding no new sizing, formatting, or constraint guidance.

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 names a specific verb + resource: 'Support the Loadbay builder with a USDC tip over x402.' That is far more concrete than the tool name 'support_loadbay' alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling 'tip_harness' (tipping a harness vs. tipping the Loadbay builder), leaving that distinction to be inferred.

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?

It opens with an explicit trigger condition and restriction: 'Only when the user asks to support or donate to Loadbay,' which tells the agent both when to use it and when not to. It also explains the follow-up action (GET the endpoint with your own x402 wallet). It does not name the closest alternative (tip_harness) for routing decisions.

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 readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already declaring the safety profile, the description still adds the crucial behavioral fact that this tool does not move money itself: it returns a payable endpoint, the agent's own wallet pays, and Loadbay never holds funds. That two-step flow is exactly the context an agent needs and is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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, no waste, and the gating condition is front-loaded before the mechanics. Each sentence carries distinct information: when to use, what it does, and how the payment actually executes.

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 exists, so the description compensates by explaining the return value (payable endpoint plus payment details). Combined with full parameter coverage and the custody disclaimer, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 both parameters are already documented (including the USD default of 1 and USDC settlement). The description adds only the 'USDC over x402' framing, which largely restates the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (tip) and resource (harness author), and the 'x402'/USDC payment rail further pins down the operation. The phrase 'harness author' implicitly separates it from support_loadbay, which targets Loadbay itself, so an agent can route correctly.

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 when the user asks to tip or pay a harness author' is an explicit use condition that prevents unprompted invocation. It does not name support_loadbay as the sibling alternative for other payment intents, leaving that routing to inference.

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