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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the API deploys a clone, settles payment via x402, and leaves owner transactions unsent, plus the $50 cost. This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and prerequisites without ambiguity.

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—two sentences—with the core action and outputs front-loaded. It includes cost and workflow details without unnecessary repetition or fluff, making it easy to parse.

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 what the tool returns (three transaction types) and the overall workflow (API deploys, owner sends), which is sufficient for a high-level call. It lacks specifics about output format or transaction structure, but given no output schema and the nature of the tool, the gaps are minor.

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 each parameter already has a clear definition (e.g., token address, entries with cumulative amounts, optional name/deadline). The description adds no extra parameter details beyond reinforcing that entries are cumulative allocations, which is already in the schema. 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 a specific action (deploy a cumulative Merkle token distributor on Base) and the output (approval, gross funding, and unpause transactions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like distribution_get or distribution_proof, which likely retrieve proofs or query existing distributions.

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 use case (creating a new distributor) and notes that owner transactions remain unsent, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance. Context is clear, but no exclusions or alternate tool references are given.

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 the full behavioral burden. It does this well by stating the operation is a read ('Read'), explicitly noting it is 'Free,' and listing the exact response content. It lacks details about error cases or idempotency guarantees, but for a simple get operation this is acceptable disclosure.

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 extremely concise: one sentence establishes the operation and output shape, and a second adds the cost behavior. There is no filler or repetition, and the key verb and resource are 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no nested objects, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the cost implication. The only mild gap is error behavior on a nonexistent id, but the simple shape makes this complete enough for an agent to 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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter, id, and even states that it is returned by distribution_create, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning 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 starts with a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('token distribution'), then enumerates the meaningful fields returned (root, contract, promised total, funded balance, claim URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like distribution_create and distribution_proof, since it is explicitly the read operation.

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 makes it clear that the tool is for reading a distribution and mentions the included data, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with distribution_create or distribution_proof, nor does it state conditions such as 'use this when the distribution already exists' or 'use distribution_create first to get an id.' The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 and does disclose a non-obvious cost ($0.001 USDC via x402) and a free 404 for missing recipients. However, it omits authorization requirements, rate limits, and response-shape details beyond naming the result contents.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the cost and free-404 behavior. No filler 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, it is nearly complete: it names the output concept, cost, and an error case, and the schema supplies parameter descriptions. It could be stronger with an explicit alternative or response format, but nothing essential is missing for a 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies; the schema already documents id and address. The description's 'recipient cumulative amount' adds minor context to address but does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: getting one recipient's cumulative amount and Merkle proof for a distribution. The unique 'Merkle proof' deliverable distinguishes this tool from generic sibling getters like distribution_get.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over distribution_get or distribution_create, and no alternatives are named. The usage context is only implied by the proof-specific wording.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by disclosing the cost ($0.02 USDC via x402) and the returned data type, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe potential failure modes, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the critical cost detail in a second short sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or 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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential details: chain, asset classes, USD valuation, and cost. It is nearly complete, though a brief note on read-only behavior would fully cover the no-annotations 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?

The schema already documents the single parameter 'address' as 'Wallet address on Base' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that it is a Base address, but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching 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 clearly states that the tool returns ETH and ERC-20 balances for a Base address with USD values. It is precise about the resource and scope, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb such as 'Gets' or 'Retrieves.' It is distinguishable from siblings like token_info by focusing on the full portfolio balance.

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?

No explicit or implicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as token_info or swap_quote. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or contextual conditions that would help an agent decide between this and 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?

The description discloses key behavioral traits: the session lasts 24 hours, it is free, it unlocks specific benefits, and it remains only in this MCP process. This goes beyond what annotations (none provided) would convey, though it doesn't mention side effects like whether creating a new session invalidates an existing one.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and duration, then adds the key benefits and scope. 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the session does, how long it lasts, its cost, and its scope. It could mention what happens if a session already exists, but that's a minor gap for a simple creation 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the effect of the call rather than parameters.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('a 24-hour session'), and the purpose ('unlocks GLINT tier quota, discounts and execution fees'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it is free and scoped to the MCP process.

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 it: when the agent needs to unlock GLINT tier benefits for the configured wallet. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter tool.

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 the $0.005 USDC cost via x402 and that it returns a quote only, no calldata. However, it doesn't describe response contents, failure modes, or whether a swap is ever executed, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It communicates the core purpose, scope, and cost efficiently.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description doesn't specify what the returned quote contains (e.g., output amount, route, aggregator). It does mention the fee and quote-only nature, but for a paid tool, more contextual detail about return format would make it more 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 that the tool finds the best swap output across Base aggregators and explicitly says it's 'quote only, no calldata.' This distinguishes it from swap_route in function, though it doesn't name the sibling directly.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like swap_route. The phrase 'no calldata' implies a quote-only use case, but there is no direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use or mention of 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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the fee model, the output fields (to/data/value), and that the user must sign and send the transaction. It does not cover failure modes or route validity windows, but the core call behavior is transparent.

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 each add distinct value: purpose, cost, and output/handoff. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler or 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?

Given no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps like route expiry or failure behavior do not seriously hurt completeness.

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 the schema already documents all parameters and their meanings. The description adds useful context about signing and fees but does not need to repeat parameter-level detail.

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 action and resource: finding the best swap route across Base aggregators and returning ready-to-sign calldata. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling swap_quote, which would provide a quote rather than executable transaction data.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you want an executable swap route to sign and send, with costs and fee structure stated up front. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'ready-to-sign calldata' framing gives clear 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool costs money, which is a behavioral trait, and lists the data returned. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it can fail (e.g., for non-ERC-20 addresses), or any rate limits or 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core facts are front-loaded, and the cost note is a useful, compact addition. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter read tool, the description is mostly complete: it lists the data returned and the cost. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent might want to know the response format or whether the liquidity check is a boolean or a numeric value. The description is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 the schema already documents the address parameter. The description adds context that the address is on Base and that it is an ERC-20 contract, which is slightly more than the schema, but it does not add format or validation details beyond 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 names a specific verb ('Base ERC-20 facts') and lists concrete resources: metadata, supply, deployer, USD price, and round-trip liquidity check. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like portfolio or swap_quote, which are clearly different in scope.

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 for retrieving token facts, and the cost note ('Costs $0.005 USDC via x402') gives a practical condition. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the address parameter.

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 does add useful context: the webhook is signed)Skip, and there is a per-item daily cost via x402. However, it does not mention that this creates a persistent watch, what triggers the webhook beyond 'trip', 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 one short, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the core action and includes important billing and delivery details. 'Signed webhook on trip' is terse but understandable in context.

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 has nested conditional item schemas and no output schema, the description is incomplete about return values and what happens when requirements are met. It compensates somewhat by mentioning the webhook and pricing, but an agent still lacks context about the response or how payment is handled.

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 the schema fully explains items, days, and webhookUrl. The description adds pricing context and the fact that multiple items are billed separately, but it does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool's domain (watching Base balances or USD prices) and the event condition (signed webhook on trip), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_delete and watch_get. However, it never explicitly says 'create a watch' — that is only implied by the tool name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as watch_delete or watch_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, payment setup, or scenarios that would favor one sibling over another.

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 behavioral burden and meaningfully discloses that the operation is free, idempotent, and never refunded because days were prepaid. It does not cover all side effects or error behavior, but the core behavioral contract is clearly stated.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place, adding behavioral and billing context compactly.

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 simple one-parameter, idempotent delete/stop operation, the description covers purpose, cost behavior, idempotency, and refund policy. It does not describe return values or error semantics, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that this is not a blocking gap.

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 id is fully documented in the schema with 'Watch id returned by watch_create', so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds context about prepaid days but no parameter-level detail beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb-object pair ('Stop one watch') and clearly scopes it to exactly one watch, distinguishing it from watch_create and watch_get. The action is immediately identifiable without needing the tool name.

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 its siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. 'Free, idempotent' describes safety and cost but not the contextual decision of when to call watch_delete.

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 the burden. It clearly states the operation is a read ('Read') and adds the useful detail that it is 'Free' (no cost). However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the watch must exist, error behavior, or whether recent webhook deliveries are limited in count.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned data. Every word earns its place, and the 'Free' note is a useful extra detail.

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 simple single-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is read and what is returned. It could be improved by noting whether the watch must exist or what happens if the id is invalid, but given the simplicity and the 100% schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter. The description adds context that the id is a watch id returned by watch_create, which is helpful, but it does not add much beyond the schema's own description.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one watch'), and enumerates the exact data returned: condition, status, last observed value, and recent webhook deliveries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like watch_create and watch_delete, which are about creating and deleting watches.

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 context: it is a read operation for a single watch, and the sibling list shows watch_create/watch_delete as related lifecycle tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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