DYOE Store Safety Check ($0.05)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call is metered at $0.05 USDC on Base paid via x402, and it discloses the shape of the result (verdict plus signals such as checkout, returns, payment methods). It still omits latency, failure modes, and whether a verdict can be inconclusive.

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 core question ('Is this online store safe to buy from?'), followed by output content, audience, input, and price in a single dense line. Efficient, though the em-dash chain and pricing/input tail make it slightly crowded.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating what is returned (fraud check, trust verdict, store signals). For a one-parameter, read-only, paid tool the agent has enough to decide and call, with only rate-limit/error behavior left unspecified.

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% and the single 'url' parameter is already well described with an example, so baseline is 3. The description only echoes the parameter as '?url=' and adds no format, validation, or normalization guidance beyond the schema.

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 (store scam/fraud check) plus the concrete deliverable: a safe/caution/avoid trust verdict and store signals. The scope ('counterparty trust for shopping & commerce agents before they pay') makes it distinguishable from generic siblings like dyoe_reputation or dyoe_verify, though it never names which sibling to prefer.

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?

Tells the agent exactly when to invoke it: before paying at an unfamiliar online store, framed as a pre-purchase trust gate for commerce agents. It gives no exclusions or pointer to sibling tools for other trust questions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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