tool

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: tools are paid from a wallet (base/tempo/solana), free tools are marked by priceMicroUsd 0, and the tool list is read dynamically from the gateway so it never goes stale. It also explains GET vs POST parameter handling. It does not fully describe side effects, but it contradicts nothing and supplements the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs useful operational details into a few sentences. Every sentence earns its place, covering discovery, pricing, and parameter semantics. It is a bit long with the em-dash list, but nothing is redundant.

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 dynamic dispatcher with an external tool list, the description covers the critical gaps: how to discover tools, what to pay, wallet requirements, and how to pass arguments. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required here. It omits error/timeout behavior, but that is not essential for basic invocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial guidance: `name` must match list_tools exactly, `args` should follow the `example` from list_tools, and the HTTP method affects how args are sent. This is valuable beyond the raw schema, even though the per-tool args are intentionally dynamic.

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 runs a UTILITY tool by name, not an AI model, and lists concrete categories like scraping, OCR, and chain RPC. It distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with AI model usage and pointing to list_tools for discovery, though the tool name itself is generic.

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 an explicit usage instruction: call list_tools FIRST to get the live list with prices and input shapes. It also explains which tools need payment and which are free, and it clarifies that this is not for AI model calls. It does not name specific sibling alternatives for each category, but it provides clear context for when to use the dispatcher.

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