picoads

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false). The description adds useful context about what metrics are returned (serves, clicks, conversions, earnings, CTR, conversion rate, eCPM) and the purpose (audience engagement analysis). However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs beyond the required agent_id, or data freshness details. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and return values. The second sentence provides usage guidance. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage.

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 complexity (analytics tool with 3 parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what metrics are returned and the tool's purpose, but doesn't detail output format, timezone handling, or how metrics are calculated. With annotations handling behavioral aspects, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions analytics generally but doesn't explain how parameters like 'days' or 'hub_id' affect the returned metrics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check your publisher analytics' with specific metrics listed (serves, clicks, conversions, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on publisher analytics rather than bids, matches, or recommendations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_hub_stats' which might be a related analytics tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage guidance: 'Use this to see how your audience engages with recommendations.' This suggests the tool is for analyzing audience engagement metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_hub_stats' or 'check_roas', nor does it mention any exclusions 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?

Annotations indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive. Description confirms a state-changing registration but adds no further behavioral details (e.g., side effects, irreversibility). With annotations covering the core, the description adds minimal extra context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second provides prerequisite. Efficient 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?

Describes the core flow but omits details about optional parameters (bootstrap_token, payment_signature) and return values. For a completion tool in a registration workflow, more guidance on optional fields and potential outcomes would improve completeness.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add any parameter-level clarification beyond what the schema provides, resulting in baseline score.

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 completes agent registration using a signed wallet message. It distinguishes from register_agent by specifying the prerequisite. The action is specific and 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?

Explicitly instructs to call register_agent first, providing a clear prerequisite. Does not explore when not to use or alternative tools, but the given guidance is sufficient for proper 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?

Annotations indicate a safe, non-destructive, idempotent read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: earnings per recommendation, no registration required for calling, and registration for earnings tracking. This fully complements the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is three sentences, effectively front-loading purpose and usage. The third sentence about registration could be integrated, but it does not detract significantly. Every sentence adds value, though slightly less structured than ideal.

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 explains return types (products, tools, services with live pricing) and labeling requirement. It covers earnings model but could benefit from more detail on output format or pagination. For a simple recommendation tool, it is fairly 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds practical tips for 'topic' and 'context' parameters, improving usability beyond the schema. For 'max_results', no additional value is added, but overall the parameters are well-explained.

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 returns sponsored recommendations relevant to user queries, including products, tools, services with live pricing. It distinguishes from siblings by its specific focus on sponsored content and earnings.

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 explains when to use (present alongside organic answers, labeled 'Sponsored') and that it's free to call without registration. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use or contrast with siblings, but the context is clear enough.

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 states that feedback is read and used to decide future inventory, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It efficiently communicates the tool's intent and unique value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining sentences.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about anonymity, how feedback is used, and the types of questions asked. It covers the 'why' and 'what' adequately for a feedback 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%, so the parameters are documented. The description adds some context by mapping the questions to specific parameters (e.g., 'did you find what you needed' maps to 'did_you_find_it'), but does not provide syntax or additional semantics 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 tool is for providing feedback about picoads, using specific verbs like 'tell us what you think' and listing the questions it covers. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about browsing, checking, and posting bids.

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 that feedback is anonymous and requires no registration, implying low barrier to use. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the tool is unique among siblings, so context is 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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that the tool never changes the recommendation, shares commission, and requires registration to track earnings. This goes beyond annotations by explaining side effects and 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?

Description is five sentences long, front-loaded with the primary goal. Each sentence adds value (purpose, behavior, reassurance, registration info). Slightly longer than minimal but still 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the behavior: monetization attempt fallback, no change to recommendation, and registration for earnings. No gaps identified.

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 'url' parameter is described in the schema with coverage 100%. The description adds context that this is the URL the agent chose and will be monetized if possible, which reinforces its purpose.

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 earns commission on links already being recommended. It explicitly says it returns a monetized version if available, or the original URL otherwise. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools which focus on browsing, bidding, and registration.

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 instructs to pass the outbound URL the agent chose and explains the conditional behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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 provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds context that it's a free, one-time registration creating a permanent identity, but doesn't elaborate on idempotency or side effects beyond what annotations convey.

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 value proposition, no waste. Efficiently covers purpose, process, and next step.

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?

Missing output schema, but description implies return includes identity, API key, etc., and steps to complete registration. Adequate for a registration flow with sibling guidance.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters.

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 registers an agent, providing identity, API key, earnings tracking, and USDC payouts. It distinguishes itself as step 1 of 2 from sibling complete_registration.

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 it's step 1 of 2 and directs to call complete_registration next. Mentions free registration and 30 seconds, giving clear context on when to use.

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