Tereno on Base

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It discloses a key behavioral trait: cost sharing/reuse where answers cached by other agents reduce cost and earn credit for the producing wallet. This goes beyond simple read behavior and aids expectation setting.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and supported by pricing and reuse details. It is not overly verbose, though the cost explanation could be shortened without losing clarity.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and the pricing model. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and operational context, though it lacks explicit return format or error handling.

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 zero parameters and is fully covered (100%). The description clarifies that no parameters are required and adds meaning by listing the returned data fields, which is useful since no output schema is provided.

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 retrieves the current state of Base, listing specific data points (latest block number, timestamp, base fee, suggested gas fees) and emphasizes it requires no parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with contracts, evidence, and transactions.

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 on when to use the tool (getting current state cheaply) and the cost model, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. An agent must infer exclusivity from the sibling names.

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 and discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the paid-per-call model with x402, pricing based on network caching, sharing mechanics, and that each answer includes the block at which it becomes invalid. It does not mention edge cases like what happens if there is no previous observation, but the disclosure is substantial.

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 and information-dense, covering purpose, examples, output, cost, and sharing in four sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, though the opening question is largely rhetorical and could be trimmed.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, what output to expect, and the business model. It lacks explicit failure/edge-case behavior, but for its complexity it is well-rounded and 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself already provides a detailed description of the 'address' parameter, including its pattern and use case. The tool description reinforces that it refers to a 'Base contract' but adds little beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: comparing a Base contract with its previous Tereno observation to detect changes such as proxy upgrades, admin swaps, bytecode changes, or pauses. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('Base contract', 'Tereno observation'), and the examples of detectable changes distinguish it from sibling tools like contract_guard or contract_interface.

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 usage context by suggesting 'Poll it on a watchlist' and enumerating specific scenarios (silent proxy upgrade, admin swap, etc.). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest mark.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It does disclose the pay-per-call model and the shared-answer credit mechanism, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if any state changes occur. The phrase 'bounded action verdict' is ambiguous about what the verdict values are.

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 about three sentences and opens with the core action ('Check whether...'). The pricing and sharing details are relevant for an agent making cost decisions, but they could be condensed. Overall, it is 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return value. It mentions a 'bounded action verdict' but does not specify possible verdict values, the structure, or any error conditions. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), this is a noticeable gap, though the tool is not overly complex.

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 fully describes the only parameter ('address' as 'Base contract address to check'), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond the tool's overall purpose. Thus, the baseline score of 3 applies—the schema handles the semantics.

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 function: 'Check whether an address is executable code, detect common proxy and pause signals, and return a bounded action verdict.' It specifies a concrete action (checking contract safety) and the resource (a Base address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_interface, which likely returns interface data, and transaction_intent_guard, which likely handles transaction intents.

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 title frames the intended use case ('Is this Base contract safe to interact with?'), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like contract_interface or transaction_intent_guard. It also provides no exclusions or contrasting guidance. The pricing and sharing notes are operational context, not usage selection criteria.

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 cost, sharing, bounded check, and credit mechanism, contributing valuable behavioral context. It doesn't mention read-only nature or return format, but the cost and sharing details exceed typical descriptions.

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 with front-loaded purpose and efficient details. Every sentence adds value, including cost and sharing, without redundancy.

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 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, detection scope, and cost model, but doesn't describe the return format or error behavior. Given the complexity, it's reasonably complete but with notable 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 a well-described address parameter. The description doesn't add any syntax or semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool detects ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155, ERC-165, and EIP-1967 proxy slots in one bounded check, which is a specific verb+resource. The title reinforces the purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like token_metadata or contract_change.

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 (detect contract standard) but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. It provides clear context around the tool's function and cost model, but no comparison to sibling 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 the disclosure burden. It reveals key traits: no immediate credit, bounded and non-transferable credit, and conditional release only if the same wallet later settles the capability. This is useful, though it doesn't mention if the pledge is irreversible or if it has other 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'Free market-signal pledge,' and every clause adds value. It is concise without sacrificing key behavioral 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 tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the pledge's purpose and credit behavior. It lacks guidance on return values or failure conditions, but these are less critical for a simple declarative 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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents wallet and capability thoroughly. The description adds some context (e.g., 'same wallet' reinforces the wallet parameter) but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, warranting a 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?

The description clearly states it is a market-signal pledge for declaring a capability you would pay for, with a specific conditional credit mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chain_snapshot or token_metadata, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when to avoid it. It implies a usage for signaling demand but offers no guidance on alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer 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, the description alone communicates cost (paid per call, $0.01-$0.03 USDC), privacy (never cached/shared/resold), and scope (only public work). This adds transparency beyond a simple description, but it does not mention side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. It does not contradict any 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 reasonably concise, using four short sentences to convey purpose, return payload, cost, and privacy. It is front-loaded with the primary question and function, but includes some operational details (cost, privacy) that could be considered secondary. Still, each sentence adds value; 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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the types of returned data (provenance, field validity, recomputation inputs), but it does not specify the response format (e.g., JSON structure). It also leaves the notion of 'reuse' and the decision threshold to inference. Complete enough for a simple tool but with gaps in expected output structure.

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 fully documents the only parameter (artifactId) with pattern and description, including expiration recomputation behavior. The main description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 function: to determine if a public Tereno artifact can be reused and return provenance, field validity, and recomputation inputs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on reuse eligibility for a single Base artifact with x402 payment.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool comparisons. While the question 'Can this public Tereno artifact be reused?' implies a usage scenario, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this tool over siblings like tereno_catalog or tereno_evidence_reference. It lacks exclusions or situational guidance.

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 discloses that the tool is free to use ('Free.') and explicitly lists the type of information it returns (capabilities, prices, validity, sharing). Without annotations, these disclosures provide essential behavioral context for a read-only catalog, though it does not explicitly state it is read-only.

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 exceptionally concise, using just three short sentences to convey the tool's purpose and content. 'Free.' front-loads the most critical information, and every subsequent phrase adds value, with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description provides complete context: what the catalog covers, cost of using it, and guidance to read it first. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using this tool effectively.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty schema), the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details. It adds meaningful context about the content of the catalog, fulfilling the baseline score of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 this tool as Tereno's full capability catalog, including answers, price tiers in USDC on Base, validity duration, and sharing status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tereno_price and tereno_receipt by serving as the overarching reference before any payment-related 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 instruction 'Read this before paying for anything' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool—prior to any payment-related operation. It implies that other tools should be used after consulting this catalog, providing clear contextual guidance without naming specific 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It proactively discloses that the tool is free, that installationId is hashed and deduplicated daily, and that it never creates payment or credit. This addresses the main behavioral concerns, though it does not exhaustively describe all behaviors such as error handling or side effects beyond logging.

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 concise sentences. The first states the core purpose and output; the second explains the optional parameter. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every clause 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates what the tool returns (producer, validity window, normalized input). It covers the input (artifactId, installationId) and the operational context (experiment participation, no cost). For a simple read tool with one required parameter, this is 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, particularly for installationId (purpose of participating in the cross-agent experiment and its hashed/deduped handling) and artifactId (origin from another agent). This raises the score above 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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource (artifactId) and explicitly lists the output: producer, validity window, and normalized input. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the use case 'another agent handed you', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool (when another agent hands you an artifactId) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is strong, but it lacks explicit exclusions or other sibling tool references.

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 fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is free, that rewards are paid by the opener (not Tereno), that the reward is not escrowed, and that challenging is free at the claim's challengeEndpoint. This is rich, honest behavioral context that goes far beyond a simple read/list operation.

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 three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: cost, scope, and challenge mechanics. It front-loads the 'Free' fact and stays fully on-topic with 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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what claims are, how they are falsified, deadlines, reward source, and the challenge endpoint. This is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and constraints without additional documentation.

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 'limit' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. It contributes nothing beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for 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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('open, deterministic claims about Base proxy contracts'), with additional context about rewards and falsification. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tereno_publish or tereno_catalog.

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 when to use the tool (to find claims you could challenge) and provides context (free, open), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since no exclusions or alternatives are given, it earns a mid-range score.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is free, non-binding, does not reveal a wallet, and explains the hit/partial/miss tier semantics. This covers the essential behavioral traits for a pricing tool, though rate limits or auth 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 concise and well-structured: four short sentences, each adding meaningful information—cost, purpose, tier semantics, and value interpretation. No fluff or repetition.

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 comprehensively explains the return tiers (hit/partial/miss) without an output schema, and covers the tool's purpose and safety. Minor gaps exist around error handling or invalid inputs, but for a simple pricing tool, the description is sufficiently 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% coverage, describing all four parameters with types and formats. The description adds little beyond 'one specific input,' so the schema already provides the necessary parameter semantics.

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: it provides an indicative price and reuse tier for a specific input, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actual operations. The title reinforces this as a cost-check 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 implies usage before committing to an operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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 fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains costs (free, no gas), consequences (mismatch burns, match pays dividends), requirements (owning an agentId), and side effects (reputation registry projection). It also notes that unverifiable agentId claims are skipped without affecting the publication.

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 dense paragraph with six sentences. It front-loads key information (free, no gas) and every sentence contributes useful context. It is not overly verbose, though structured formatting could improve scanability.

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 comprehensively covers the tool's effects and prerequisites: burn on mismatch, dividend on match, reputation projection with agentId, and the external registration process. Despite lacking an output schema, it provides a complete picture of what happens before, during, and after the call.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context for agentId (audit projection) and the registration flow, but it largely repeats schema information. It does not significantly elaborate on computedAtBlock or bytecodeBytes beyond their existing 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 and title clearly state the tool's function: submitting a self-computed contract bytecode fingerprint for on-chain attestation. It uses a specific verb (submit/publish) and a specific resource (contract bytecode fingerprint), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 states when to use the tool (after computing a fingerprint) and provides an alternative path for obtaining an agentId via an external HTTP endpoint. It also notes that there is no HTTP-only sibling for this, guiding the agent to the correct external registration route.

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 full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'Free' and details the returned information (capability, version, cache tier, price paid, on-chain settlement). The verb 'look up' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom or require authentication. Still, it provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Free' and the core purpose. Every sentence contributes value – the first describes what it does, the second specifies when to use it. 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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the result fields (capability, version, cache tier, list price, credit, paid price, on-chain settlement). It fully explains the tool's purpose and context. Minor gaps like not-found behavior do not significantly impede understanding.

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 already covers the single parameter 'invocationId' with description 'Invocation id from a receiptUrl.' The tool description does not add further meaning about the parameter beyond referencing 'settled invocation' in the purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 starts with 'Look up what a settled invocation actually charged' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like tereno_price (for quotes) and tereno_catalog (for catalog data) by focusing on settled receipts/billing verification.

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 states the intended use: 'Use it to check that a call you or another agent paid for was billed the way it was quoted.' This gives a clear when-to-use signal. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is specific and actionable.

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 must carry the full burden. It transparently discloses key behaviors: paid per call with x402 pricing, caching and sharing of answers, block-level freshness, and the credit/reuse model. This far exceeds basic read-tool descriptions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is reasonably concise. The pricing and sharing details add length but are essential behavioral context, so the trade-off is acceptable.

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 adequately specifies the returned fields (name, symbol, decimals, total supply) and also covers the response freshness and network (Base). The additional economic model context makes the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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 fully describes the single address parameter, including pattern and purpose. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's 100% coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads a Base token's name, symbol, decimals, and total supply from a given contract address. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Base token'), and this scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like contract_interface.

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 the tool is for looking up token metadata but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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 fully discloses key behaviors: it simulates rather than broadcasts, costs $0.05 USDC per call via x402, respects privacy (never cached/shared/resold), and operates only on unsigned transactions. This is a high degree of transparency for a security-focused tool.

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 yet information-dense: a framing question, a list of core analyses, and a brief note on cost and privacy. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 covers network (Base), cost, privacy, and functionality. While no output schema exists, the list of analyses implies the return content, and the title hints at a safety verdict. A slight gap exists regarding explicit output format or error behavior, but the description is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 each parameter (from, to, data, value) having a clear description and format. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description explicitly lists multiple specific functions: classify transaction intent, simulate execution, estimate gas, infer balance/allowance deltas, flag scams/unlimited approvals, and inspect target changes/pause state. This goes well beyond a vague statement and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on contracts or chains.

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: 'Before signing on Base' indicates when to use it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well defined. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the described functionality, though not explicitly stated.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the payment model (x402 on Base, $0.02–$0.03 USDC), reuse mechanics, and optional claim checking. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., inaccessible pages), the structure of the output artifact, or how the optional claim check is triggered (no parameter for that). These gaps reduce transparency.

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 paragraph of about 150 words, with every sentence adding value: main purpose, optional feature, reuse, pricing, and sharing. It is front-loaded with the primary action. While efficient, it could be more scannable with bullet points or shorter sentences, hence not a perfect 5.

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 no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It mentions 'bounded, LLM-ready Markdown with a content-addressed artifact' but does not specify the artifact's format, how to re-verify, or what the optional claim check returns. The pricing and reuse details are helpful, but the lack of output clarity leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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%—both 'url' and 'wallet' are already fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, when coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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 converts a public web page into 'bounded, LLM-ready Markdown' with a content-addressed artifact for verification. It uses specific verbs ('Turn', 'compile') and resource ('public web page'), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the re-verification and payment reuse features, which are unique among the listed sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool (to get a verified, reusable Markdown version of a page) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. It mentions the cost and reuse benefits but lacks direct guidance on distinguishing from similar tools like 'evidence_artifact' or 'tereno_find_claims'.

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