risk_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the x402/USDC-on-Base payment requirement, the exact behavior of the first call (HTTP 402 challenge), the required client-side retry, and a custody guarantee ('never touches your wallet'). It omits cost amount and any retry/rate-limit specifics.

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, front-loaded with the PAID warning, then the payload, then the payment mechanics. No filler; each sentence adds information.

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 paid, non-annotated tool with no output schema, it covers what matters most: what is returned (fused weather/seismic/exposure) and the 402-then-pay-then-retry flow. Missing cost magnitude and post-payment response shape are minor given the succinct scope.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies the pair is 'a coordinate' — no units, coordinate order, or valid range — which adds almost nothing beyond the self-evident lat/lon names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a single fused brief for a coordinate, explicitly enumerating its contents (weather, nearest seismic activity, exposure summary). This clearly distinguishes it from the raw `weather` and `earthquakes` siblings, though it never names them as alternatives.

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 payment/retry flow is spelled out, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the cheaper `weather`/`earthquakes` tools, nor when the fused brief is preferable. Usage is only implied by the composite contents.

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