format_graphql_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal meaningful behavior: validation, formatting, minification, comment stripping, whitespace removal, and the USDC cost. However, it does not disclose output format, error behavior, or whether paymentSignature is mandatory in practice.

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?

The entire description is one focused sentence with explicit verbs and no filler. The cost note is compact and useful. Every part contributes to understanding 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 and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns, how the GraphQL document should be passed (raw string vs JSON wrapper), or what happens on validation failure. The 'formats and minifies' pairing also leaves ambiguity about the output mode. These gaps matter for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little about payload semantics beyond implying it should contain GraphQL content, and paymentSignature is only explained by the schema. No significant extra parameter meaning is provided.

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 verb set—validates, formats, minifies—and a specific resource: GraphQL queries and mutation documents. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like format_sql_query_pretty or validate_code_syntax, since the GraphQL scope is explicit.

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: use when you need to validate, format, or minify a GraphQL query or mutation. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to any of the many sibling formatting/validation tools, leaving some routing to inference.

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