request_nip90_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses that the task is 'across Nostr relays' and includes 'local fallback'. It does not mention whether this dispatches a paid bid, whether it awaits results, whether it mutates state, or what happens on failure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('Dispatch', 'NIP-90 DVM analytics', 'across Nostr relays', 'local fallback') contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what a DVM is, whether the tool returns results synchronously or asynchronously, when payment is involved, or how the local fallback behaves in practice. An agent has to infer significant operational context from the parameter schema alone.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but per the baseline rule, this is acceptable when the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Dispatch') and a concrete resource type ('NIP-90 DVM analytics computation task'), so an agent can tell this is for submitting analytics work to a DVM infrastructure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'check_trust_score' tool, which could plausibly overlap with the 'trust-score' category.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_trust_score' or any of the payment-oriented siblings. The description implies usage through its name and wording, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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