AgentVerify

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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden, but it does disclose meaningful traits: the profile is public, free, and excludes the trust score. It does not state whether the lookup is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded fragments with no wasted language. It delivers the key scope and exclusion information immediately.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description gives useful scope and pricing context but does not describe what fields a 'public agent profile' returns. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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 parameter agent_id is already documented in the schema as a stable av: id or did:key. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 identifies the resource as a public agent profile and distinguishes it from trust-related lookups by stating it does not include the trust score. It is clear enough for an agent to know this is a profile lookup, though it does not begin with an explicit verb such as 'Retrieve'.

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 note that it does not include the trust score implies that trust_check should be used for trust assessment, and 'Free' may differentiate it from pricing-related tools. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use guidance is 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not clarify whether the call is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what 'network' and 'payments mode' mean operationally. The trailing 'Free' is ambiguous and could refer to cost, access tier, or endpoint behavior.

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 very short and front-loads the returned information. The trailing fragment 'Free.' is terse but unclear rather than wasteful. There is no unnecessary preamble.

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 read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should do more to explain the shape of the returned pricing/network/payments data. Terms like 'network' and 'payments mode' are not elaborated, leaving the agent to infer the response contents.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to explain, and the description appropriately does not invent input details.

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 the specific resource set it returns: AgentVerify prices, network, and payments mode. The name 'get_pricing' supplies the retrieval verb, and the content clearly differs from siblings like get_agent_profile and trust_check. It lacks an explicit verb in the description itself, but the purpose is still clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trust_check or verify_badge. The only implied use is retrieving pricing information. No exclusions or conditions are 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose key behavior: a payment-required error without payment, a retry mechanism via _meta, an alternative auth path for registered agents, and a daily free quota. It does not describe the trust score's contents or response format, but the auth/error behavior is well covered.

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-loads the purpose before the payment/auth mechanics. The jargon is dense, but every sentence carries operational information without 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the auth/payment flow reasonably well but leaves out what a trust score represents and how it differs from sibling tools. An agent can attempt the call, but lacks full context for interpreting or preferring this 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 agent_id, so the schema already documents the only declared parameter. However, the description instructs passing params._meta values even though the schema sets additionalProperties: false, which is a direct inconsistency that could mislead an agent about valid input.

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 the specific resource and scope: 'Trust score for one agent.' It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_agent_profile or verify_badge.

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 explains the payment and auth conditions for invoking the tool, but it does not say when an agent should use this tool versus the sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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 behavioral burden, and it does disclose the meaningful trait that verification is against this server's Ed25519 key, plus that the call is free. However, it says nothing about what a failed or expired badge produces, whether an invalid badge is an error or a negative result, or what the response shape is.

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 short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no wasted prose. The trailing "Free." is terse but does convey a real constraint that affects tool choice.

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 tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers what the tool does and the trust model it uses. Missing is any statement of the verification outcome semantics, which matters because there is no output schema to describe return values.

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 one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that the badge is a compact vc+jwt, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, size, or encoding detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb ("Check") and a specific resource ("AgentVerify trust badge") and names the cryptographic basis ("Ed25519 key"), so an agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling trust_check, leaving some ambiguity about which verification path to take.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling trust_check or get_agent_profile, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only usage-adjacent note is "Free," which is a pricing fact rather than guidance on tool selection.

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