Teppi

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that the tool 'Answers unrated rather than guessing when the evidence is thin', disclosing how it handles uncertainty. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the read-only and open-world aspects, and the description does not contradict 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool returns, the second explains its uncertainty behavior and scope. Every clause earns its place, with no wasted or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose, the input semantics, the behavioral stance on uncertain evidence, and the applicable endpoint scope. Since there is no output schema, the description still provides enough about the returned verification aspects for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 0% description coverage and only exposes the parameter name 'id_or_url', but the description compensates by clarifying that the value is an x402 endpoint or its URL. This gives the agent the domain-specific meaning needed to populate the argument correctly, though it does not elaborate on format nuances beyond the schema's length 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 ('Return') and a specific resource ('what has been verified about an x402 endpoint or its url'), and enumerates the concrete attributes returned: whether it answers, what it charges, and whether the price has moved. It also sets itself apart from typical capability-listing tools by focusing on verification status rather than capabilities, and the 'Works for endpoints Teppi does not operate' clause further scopes the 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 gives clear usage context by saying it works for endpoints Teppi does not operate, which helps an agent choose this tool for non-Teppi x402 endpoints. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the routing guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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.