verify

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details exact conventions and tolerance, but does not disclose whether the call is read-only or has any side effects. 'FREE' hints at no cost but is ambiguous.

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?

Single sentence with all essential details front-loaded (FREE, then specifics). No wasted words, highly efficient.

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 output schema, description covers key return items (conventions for both engines, tolerance, source). Could mention structure or format, but is sufficiently complete for a zero-parameter 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?

Input schema has no parameters, so description need not compensate. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no parameter information is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool provides calculation conventions for two engines (FRN and OTC), verification tolerance, and index source. It uses specific, informative language and distinguishes from siblings like get_latest_index and verify_* 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 says 'Call this first,' indicating it is a prerequisite. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear.

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 must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions the result is free and provides date and 12dp value, but lacks details on idempotency, caching, or reliability. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences that front-load the key information (FREE, latest index point) and provide a usage hint. 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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its intended use. Could mention data source (SARB) or update frequency, but still complete enough for basic usage.

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?

Tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%). Description adds meaning by specifying the return content: latest published index point, date and 12dp value, which are not in the schema.

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?

Description explicitly states it returns the latest published SARB Compounded ZARONIA Index point with date and 12dp value. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (get_conventions, verify_frn_coupon, verify_otc_coupon) which focus on conventions or 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?

Advises using the tool to confirm data freshness before verifying, providing a clear workflow context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention 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, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure: paid ($0.25), returns coupon to 4dp, full audit workings, match/mismatch verdict at 0.05bp tolerance, and payment pathways. No gaps in key behavioral aspects.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: announcing the tool and its function, detailing return values, and providing payment guidance. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the most critical 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 complex financial verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return elements (coupon value, audit workings, verdict) and tolerance. It references the official formula and distinguishes from siblings, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 high (88%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of expected_coupon_pct (enables verdict) and the api_key (bypass x402). It also implies calc_date is for computation. Does not detail every parameter but adds useful context beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states action (recompute and verify), resource (South African ZARONIA FRN coupon), and references the specific formula (SARB §2.2.3). Distinguishes from siblings like get_conventions and verify_otc_coupon.

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 explicit context for when to use (to verify an FRN coupon) and how to handle payment (api_key or x402). While no explicit 'do not use' statements, sibling names and the description imply appropriate vs inappropriate usage (e.g., not for OTC).

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?

Discloses the paid nature ($0.10) and the output (coupon, workings, verdict with 0.05bp tolerance). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it covers key behavioral aspects but omits error handling or rate limits.

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, no fluff. Front-loaded with critical details (paid, calculation method, output). 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of calculation, tolerance, and payment. Lacks detail on error states or invalid inputs, but covers the essential usage context.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema: explains settlement_date is issue date, expected_coupon_pct triggers verification, and api_key for payment. Despite 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by clarifying parameter roles.

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 independently recomputes and verifies an OTC ZARONIA coupon, specifying lookback, day count, and rounding. It distinguishes from siblings like verify_frn_coupon by focusing on this specific instrument.

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 guidance on payment (api_key or x402) and mentions optional expected_coupon_pct for tolerance check. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like verify_frn_coupon or state when not to use this tool.

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