Compare platforms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior — which payment channels are modeled (Gumroad direct/Discover, Stripe, PayPal checkout/card/goods, Etsy) and that output is sorted best net first — but says nothing about assumptions (currency, fixed vs percentage fees) or whether this is a pure read-only computation.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the outputs and then the platform scope, with the ordering rule ('best net first') placed at the end where it belongs. Every clause carries information; only the platform enumeration is bulky.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work of stating what comes back (fee and net per platform) and how it is ordered. It stops short of describing the response shape or units in detail, but for a one-parameter calculator it is largely sufficient.

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% and the single `amount` parameter is fully documented as 'Sale price in USD'. The description only gestures at it via 'for one price' and adds no format or currency nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the exact outputs (fee and net), the single input (one price), and enumerates the platforms covered, so an agent knows this is a multi-platform fee/net comparison rather than a single-platform calculation. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling `fee` and `platforms`, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing: use it when you want fees and net across all supported platforms, with results ordered by best net. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to siblings like `fee` (single platform) or `price_for_target` for reverse calculation.

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