guild_risk_score

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

The description discloses payment/authentication behavior, mentioning paid trust read, x402 challenge, payment via _meta['x402/payment'], the x402_payment fallback, and funded api_key. It also notes that deprecated v1 fields are still returned. No annotations exist, so this information is valuable, though error and rate-limit behavior are not 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 well-organized into purpose, payment behavior, example, and deprecated fields. It is dense but every sentence adds useful information, and the primary purpose is 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?

The description covers output semantics, payment behavior, example usage, and deprecated fields, which is substantial for a read operation. It lacks explicit parameter-level documentation and error/response details, but no output schema is present and the core behavior is clear enough.

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 description mentions api_key, x402_payment, and agent_id implicitly through the example and payment explanation, but it does not explicitly define each parameter's role, type, or optionality. Since the schema provides no parameter descriptions, the agent must still infer some details from context.

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: provide an evidence-based risk view for one agent before trusting it with a task or payment. It also distinguishes itself from broader guild tools by focusing on a single agent's risk score and listing the key output concepts.

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 when to use the tool (before trusting an agent) and gives concrete payment/free usage conditions, including the x402 challenge and soft-launch behavior. It provides an example, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like guild_best_agent or guild_search.

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