Voller Report (bezahlt, x402)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of payment (USDC via x402), which is critical for a paid tool. However, it lacks details on the payment process, error handling, or rate limits, making it good but not fully 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?

The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the payment aspect, efficiently communicating the tool's value. No redundant content, but the mixed language (German/English) could confuse some users.

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 lists the report components (score, riskLevel, action, etc.), providing essential return context. However, without an output schema, more details on format or interpretation would improve completeness. It adequately covers the main outputs but lacks precision.

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 0%, and description does not explain the 'token' parameter at all, missing an opportunity to add context (e.g., Ethereum address format for nad.fun tokens). The schema alone provides the pattern, but the description should compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 provides a decision-ready report for a nad.fun token, listing specific outputs (score, riskLevel, action, etc.) and notes it is paid (Bezahlt). This distinguishes it from siblings like score_token (simple score) or token_summary (likely free), using a specific verb-resource combination.

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 use when a paid comprehensive report is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. It mentions payment but no when-not or direct comparison to siblings, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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