quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds value by explicitly confirming that no input is uploaded and no funds are spent, which is beyond the annotations. It also mentions the return of a 'free verified' quote, providing some 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 extremely concise: one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action ('Get a free verified USDC/Base quote') and specifies the services. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has an output schema (though not shown), which covers return values, and annotations handle safety. The description covers the core purpose and the service options. However, it lacks details on the exact format of the 'service' parameter and what happens after the quote (e.g., payment flow), but these are minor given the simple nature of the 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?

The schema has only one parameter 'service' with 0% description coverage and no enums. The description lists the possible service values (narration, transcription, abliterated, abliterated-large) in natural language, which adds some meaning. However, it does not specify the exact string format for 'service', leaving ambiguity for an agent. This is a significant gap because the parameter is required.

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's purpose: obtaining a free USDC/Base quote for specific services (narration, transcription, abliterated, abliterated-large). It also distinguishes the quote from actual processing by noting no upload or funds spent. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 this is a preliminary step before committing to a purchase, as it mentions 'free' and 'no funds spent.' It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like catalogue or purchase_json, but the context of 'quote' versus 'purchase' is clear. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit exclusions.

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