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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: the tool is free, and it warns that paid calls will fail if the balance is zero, with an instruction to fund the wallet. This extra cost/funding behavior is useful and not redundant with the annotation.

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 and both earn their place. The first sentence states the core function and the second provides a critical operational warning. There is no fluff or repetition, and the information is front-loaded with the key point about being free and what it returns.

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, read-only tool, the description is fairly complete. It explains what data the tool returns (address and balance) and includes an important caveat about zero balances affecting paid calls. It does not detail the return format, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential context well.

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 and the schema reflects this with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. It adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate here.

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 provides the local wallet address and its USDC balance on Base. It is specific about the resource (wallet address and balance) and implicitly conveys a 'get' action, though it lacks an explicit verb. The tool name 'pulse_balance' and the content distinguish it from siblings like pulse_call and pulse_report.

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 gives clear usage context: it is free and should be used to check the balance before making paid calls, since a zero balance will cause failures. It instructs the user to provide the address for funding. While it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, the guidance is actionable and 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?

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the paid nature, spend caps, guardrail behavior, host restrictions, and the requirement to quote prices. This is critical behavioral context for an agent handling real money.

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 four sentences with no redundancy: it leads with the purpose, then covers spend caps, guardrails, host allowlist, and quoting. Every sentence provides essential information without 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?

For a paid execution tool with no output schema, the description covers most critical context: purpose, cost, guardrails, host restrictions, and quoting. It could mention the return format or success/failure behavior, but the guardrail error handling is covered.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does mention pulse_discover as the source for path/vertical 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?

The description clearly states the tool calls a PulseNetwork endpoint and pays a price, with a specific verb (call) and resource (endpoint). This distinguishes it from siblings like pulse_discover (exploration) and pulse_balance (viewing funds).

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?

It gives explicit usage constraints: quote the price before calling, don't retry guardrail-blocked calls, and only call payable hosts. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like pulse_discover, the schema references pulse_discover for path/vertical, implying the workflow.

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?

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context: tool is FREE, catalog size (74 verticals, ~900 endpoints), and the result includes price and parameters. It doesn't contradict annotations; adds value without needing to cover 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, front-loaded with 'FREE' and the search verb. No wasted words; every clause adds value (catalog size, return fields, usage priority).

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states what is returned (endpoints with price, params, description) and gives usage direction. With 3 optional params all documented in schema, this is complete for a discovery 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 100% coverage for all three parameters (limit, query, vertical) with descriptions. The tool description offers no additional parameter-specific semantics, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states it searches the PulseNetwork catalog and returns matching endpoints with price, params, and description. 'Always discover before calling' positions it as the discovery tool distinct from pulse_call and siblings.

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 instructs to 'Always discover before calling', establishing the tool as the mandatory first step, and adds a decision rule to 'prefer the cheapest endpoint' – clear when-to-use guidance versus other 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful context about how caps can be changed (only by USER config/env edits) and that no tool exists to raise them—helpful behavioral limits beyond the annotation.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences front-load the main purpose ('show the active spend caps') and add one essential limitation. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a key limitation. It could mention what the output looks like, but that's optional given the simplicity.

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?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description confirms no parameters are needed by showing the action directly, and the schema has no fields to describe.

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 shows active spend caps, with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('active spend caps'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pulse_call or pulse_balance by focusing on guardrails/caps.

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?

Implicitly indicates when to use: when checking spend caps. The note that caps can only be changed by the user editing config gives a clear when-not-to-use for seeking a raise tool, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or comprehensive usage scenarios.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds the context that the report is 'local' and from 'this wallet's ledger,' which clarifies scope, but provides no other behavioral details like output format.

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 and front-loaded. The 'FREE' prefixed element is slightly extraneous but does not detract significantly from clarity or structure.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description and schema together provide adequate context. However, there is no mention of return value format or how this report relates to the sibling tools, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'days' parameter with a default of 7. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly identifies the tool as a spend report scoped to this wallet's ledger, which is distinct from sibling tools like pulse_balance. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'generates') and does not directly contrast with alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pulse_balance or pulse_discover. The phrase 'local spend report' implies a specific use case, but no explicit when-to-use or exclusions are given.

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