SMI: weekly history (paid)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open-world, non-idempotent), and the description goes well beyond them: exact cost and currency, network (Base Sepolia / Circle testnet USDC), the x402 payment path, which wallet key is debited, that no key means no call, and that 400/404 responses are free. These are the operational facts an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the identity of the index and its scope, then the negative (no market prices), then payment mechanics. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct information. The payment clause is long but earns its place given the paid nature of the tool.

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, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does name the content (weekly counts, totals, GCAT attribution). Payment, auth, and error-cost behavior are all covered. The only gap is the absence of an explicit boundary against smi_get_latest, which is minor relative to what is provided.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining the return content (weekly counts, totals, GCAT attribution) even though it has no inputs to document.

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 states a specific resource and scope: weekly orbital launch counts for the year so far, with totals and GCAT attribution, plus an explicit negative (contains no market prices). That cleanly separates it from smx_* market tools. It never names smi_get_latest, the obvious sibling for the current week, so the differentiation from that tool is left to inference.

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 a hard prerequisite (X402_PRIVATE_KEY must be set or the tool makes no call) and states that 400/404 errors are not charged, which is genuinely useful invocation guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-smi_get_latest routing, which is the most likely agent confusion given the sibling names.

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