Teppi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it answers 'unrated' rather than guessing on thin evidence, it can operate on endpoints outside Teppi's coverage, and it queues unseen URLs for a handshake with retry timing. This is substantial behavioral disclosure with no contradiction against 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?

Four dense sentences front-load the core purpose, then add honesty behavior, scope, and retry guidance without filler. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the colon-list structure makes the return values easy to parse.

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 adequately covers what the tool returns at a high level, but with no output schema it leaves the exact response shape undocumented, and the optional method parameter remains unexplained. For a simple lookup tool, the invocation and retry semantics are present, making it minimally viable but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and two parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining both. It does explain id_or_url implicitly through 'endpoint or its url' and 'a url never seen', but it never mentions the optional method parameter or how GET vs POST affects the check. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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

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

The description names a specific verb ('Return'), a concrete resource ('what has been verified about an x402 endpoint or its url'), and the three data points returned: whether it answers, what it charges, and whether the price moved. It is clearly distinct from route planning or capability search, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool to frame the contrast.

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 gives concrete usage context: it works even for endpoints Teppi does not operate, and it tells the agent to retry after an hour for unseen URLs. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what will be returned: schemas, pricing, networks, seller details, and all recorded observations. This is consistent with the annotations and adds value beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the scope ('Full detail for one capability') followed by a compact, informative list. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary prose.

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-only get-by-id tool, the description explains the return content well enough, and the annotations cover safety. It could be more complete by explicitly linking the id parameter to the capability being fetched, but the overall definition is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The schema has one required parameter, id, with 0% description coverage, yet the description never mentions the id parameter or how to supply it. The pattern in the schema provides format information, but the description itself adds no parameter semantics; the connection to 'one capability' is only indirect.

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 identifies the action: retrieve full detail for one capability, and enumerates the included content areas (schemas, pricing, networks, seller, observations). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_capabilities by emphasizing a single entity, but it does not explicitly contrast with any 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?

The intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need comprehensive information about a specific capability, presumably after identifying it through a search. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named.

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=true, and the description reinforces this by saying it 'Moves no money and buys nothing.' It adds meaningful behavioral context about what the tool returns: ordered list, cost estimate, and verification state per step. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and output, followed by a necessary clarification about non-execution. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating what the return value contains: ordered paid endpoints, cost estimate, and verified-step details. It also clarifies side-effect behavior. Minor gaps remain around parameter meaning, but the overall tool behavior is sufficiently described for an agent to use it 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'goal' and 'budget' at a high level. It does not explain the min_grade parameter at all, nor the budget_usd decimal-string format, nor how goal language or grade filtering affects the plan. This leaves a required and an optional parameter underspecified.

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 states a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('a goal and a budget' into a route), and clearly defines the result as an ordered list of paid endpoints with cost estimate and verification details. It also explicitly distinguishes planning from executing by saying 'returns the plan for you to run yourself.' This is clear and differentiates from the sibling tools around capabilities and grades.

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: use this when you have a goal and budget and need an ordered plan of paid endpoints. It also implicitly excludes execution by stating 'Moves no money and buys nothing: it returns the plan for you to run yourself.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it versus siblings.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the returned fields (price, schemas, networks, verification) and the verified-first sort behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, though it omits details like pagination or open-world result semantics.

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 with no filler: purpose, return payload, sort guidance, and usage trigger each occupy one sentence. It is front-loaded and every clause adds information.

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

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

For a read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary use case and return behavior well. However, with five parameters and zero schema-level documentation, the missing explanations for max_usd, network, and limit leave notable gaps for an agent trying to invoke it 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It hints at query through 'by task description' and at sort through 'Sort by verified', but leaves limit, max_usd, and network unexplained, including their format constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') with a concrete resource ('paid agent capabilities') and a clear search criterion ('by task description'). It also lists what is returned and the scenario where it should be used, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like get_capability.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use before paying an x402 endpoint you have not used.' However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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