botindex_commerce_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions fee structures and merchant counts, which hints at read-only data retrieval, but doesn't explicitly state this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that packs essential information: what it is (directory), what it contains (protocols with examples), and additional details (fee structures, merchant counts). There is no wasted verbiage, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool provides but lacks details on output format, data scope, or behavioral aspects. For a tool with no structured annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful, but it meets a basic threshold.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the inputs.

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 provides a directory of agentic commerce protocols with specific examples (ACP, UCP, x402) and includes fee structures and merchant counts. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on commerce protocols rather than other domains like crypto, sports, or analytics. However, it doesn't specify a precise action verb like 'list' or '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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to sibling tools like botindex_commerce_compare. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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