connect_lookup_exposed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a significant non-obvious behavior: the lookup may require x402 payment when the profile owner charges. It stops short of detailing payment mechanics or other call behaviors, but the payment warning is valuable.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the payment caveat is the only additional sentence, making it easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read tool the definition is mostly adequate, but without an output schema or annotations it omits how return values are shaped and how the x402 payment would be triggered. The agent gets enough to understand the purpose, but not full operational context.

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 already documents the recipient object and its type enum at 100% coverage. The description adds contextual meaning ('platforms a recipient has exposed') but provides no additional semantic detail about how to specify the recipient beyond 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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: platforms a recipient has exposed on Connect, plus the data returned (profile, scores, wallet addresses). This clearly distinguishes it from general lookup/scores siblings such as connect_lookup and connect_scores_by_account.

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 the tool is for retrieving exposed-platform and enrichment data, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over connect_lookup or the connect_scores_* siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing clues beyond the purpose phrase.

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