pulse_call

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.