llm.query

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: the call is metered, costs 0.10 USDC, and settles via the x402 protocol. It still omits operational details such as latency, rate limits, or failure behavior when payment is missing, so it is not fully transparent.

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 short sentences with the routing behavior front-loaded, but the opening fragment 'Agent-to-Agent Compute Arbitrage.' communicates nothing actionable and arguably does not earn its place. The remaining two sentences are dense and useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are covered. However, the description never explains how an agent obtains the required `paymentHash` before calling, which is a real procedural gap for a tool whose only optional parameter is gated behind an out-of-band payment.

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 coverage is 100%, so both `prompt` and `paymentHash` are already documented in the schema; the description adds only the surrounding context of the x402/Base payment that the schema itself already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 second sentence gives a concrete verb and resource: 'Route raw LLM prompts to our Gemini instance,' which is specific enough to separate it from siblings like token.analyze or contract.audit. The leading slogan 'Agent-to-Agent Compute Arbitrage' adds branding rather than meaning, and no sibling is named as an alternative.

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 states a hard prerequisite (a 0.10 USDC micro-transaction over x402), which is real usage context, but it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling compute/analysis tools or when not to use it. Usage is only implied by 'route raw LLM prompts.'

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