Wafermap

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantial undisclosed behavior: payment settlement ordering ('work runs before the payment settles, so failed calls are never charged'), the double-spend/failure semantics, and where the receipt/transaction hash lands (_meta["x402/payment-response"]). These are exactly the mutation-side risks an agent needs and cannot infer from 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-loaded with what the tool does and how it pays, then error path, then billing guarantee, then fallback. No filler; every clause is load-bearing for correct invocation.

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, and the description covers the return shape (result + receipt with tx hash in _meta), the error shape (isError with price, networks, payTo), and the settlement guarantee. For an open-world, payable mutation tool, nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 two declared params, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for a channel absent from the schema entirely — the _meta["x402/payment"] payload — plus the success/error return contract. It does not restate resource-id syntax or format beyond what the schema already says.

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 precise verb+resource ('Runs one Wafermap resource') and immediately qualifies it with the distinguishing mechanic ('pays its exact USD price over x402'). This separates it cleanly from the lookup-oriented siblings (discover, resources, resource_schema, tokens) which cannot execute anything.

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?

Gives the exact call path: send a signed x402 v2 PaymentPayload in _meta["x402/payment"], and explicitly states the no-payment case returns isError with requirements to sign. It also names an alternative route for agents without an x402 wallet (the Wafermap CLI), covering when-not/alternative conditions.

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?

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, it discloses the upstream source (Coinbase CDP), the return fields (URL, method, price, networks, example input, payable flag), and the precise 'payable' criteria (USDG on Robinhood Chain or USDC on Base). Because there is no output schema, this return-field explanation is carrying real weight.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the source and scope, followed by return contents and the usage trigger. No sentence is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 absence of an output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the payment/payability model, the upstream source, and the routing rule. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and how to interpret the results.

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 query and limit are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add syntax or behavioral detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb (searches) and resource (open x402 Bazaar index), and explicitly delimits scope as 'outside Wafermap's own catalog'. This differentiates it immediately from wafermap_resources and wafermap_call, which operate within Wafermap's own 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?

It states the exact selecting condition: 'Use it when no Wafermap resource fits the task', which implicitly points agents to wafermap_resources first. The description also clarifies that it is free, removing any cost-based hesitation about calling it.

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 openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the catalog contains 35 resources, the tool is free, and no payment is needed to list 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 front-loaded with what the tool does and how to use it in the workflow. The category list is dense but useful for an agent scanning the catalog scope, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 catalog tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return fields, total resource count, category coverage, cost, and the follow-up workflow with sibling tools.

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 both optional parameters are already well documented. The description lists the categories in prose, which reinforces the category enum, but it does not add syntax or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists Wafermap's pay-per-call resources and names the returned fields (id, name, category, USD price, summary). It also distinguishes this catalog tool from the sibling workflow tools by positioning it as the first step before wafermap_resource_schema and wafermap_call.

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 explicitly says to use this tool first to find the right resource id, then read the schema with wafermap_resource_schema, then invoke wafermap_call. That gives clear sequencing and names the relevant alternatives for subsequent steps.

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 openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the tool is free, no payment is needed, and invalid input is rejected before any payment occurs. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but none are implied for a free schema-lookup 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?

Two tightly written sentences. The return contents are front-loaded, followed by the sequencing rule and the payment/validation caveat, with 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 tool that returns a schema bundle and has no output schema, the description fully specifies what comes back: price, input schema, example input, return info, and endpoint. It also covers the workflow position and payment model, leaving no material gap for an agent to call 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 100%, and the single id parameter is documented with examples directly from wafermap_resources. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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: returns everything needed to call one Wafermap resource. It enumerates exactly what is returned (price, input JSON Schema, example input, return info, HTTP endpoint), making its purpose unmistakable and clearly 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?

Explicitly places the tool in the workflow: use after wafermap_resources and before wafermap_call so the input is valid. It also explains the consequence of skipping it (invalid input rejected before payment) and notes that the call is free, giving complete when/when-not 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 readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false annotations already cover the safety profile, yet the description adds useful context: it is free, it does not trade, and it discloses which token sets each network yields (Robinhood stock tokens vs. Base stables).

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 that front-load purpose, then network contents, then usage. The ticker enumeration (TSLA, NVDA, AAPL…) is slightly verbose, though it does convey the scope of stock tokens.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, per-network return contents, the returned fields, and how to use the result. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 an enum and a stated default, so the baseline is 3. The description earns more by explaining what each network value actually returns (ETH, WETH, USDG, stock tokens; ETH, WETH, USDC), which helps the agent choose correctly.

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 — listing the tokens a Wafermap wallet can swap through KyberSwap on one network — and names the returned fields, so it is unmistakable next to wafermap_call or wafermap_discover.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: resolve a ticker to its contract address before quoting or executing a swap. It stops short of naming sibling tools or stating when this is the wrong choice, so it falls just short of a 5.

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