agent_intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the important cost per call ($1.00 USDC) plus a clear list of returned data. It doesn't mention other details like rate limits or side effects, but as a read-only data tool, this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose, a clear output list, and cost. Every sentence provides distinct value without redundancy or filler.

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 0-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and returned data categories. It doesn't specify the exact structure of 'behavioral signals', but is otherwise complete for selecting and invoking 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, even though no parameter details are needed.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'Provides intelligence on agent wallets interacting with the Valorem x402 ecosystem' and lists specific return data types (wallet addresses, spending patterns, top providers, behavioral signals). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like catalog or builder_stats.

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 context is implied through the description: when you need intelligence on agent wallets in the ecosystem. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative references.

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