DYOE Reputation History ($0.05)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: data is computed only from DYOE's own logged prior assessments, thin history is labeled, and the call costs $0.05 USDC on Base via x402. It does not cover rate limits or authentication beyond payment, but is strong for a read-only tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is a single tight paragraph. The 'Input: ?target=' line is slightly redundant with the schema, but the pricing and payment details earn their place because they affect invocation.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields (assessment count, verdict history, flags, first/last seen, reputation score, signed credential). It also documents the data source limitation and payment model. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read 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 100%, so the single 'target' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the parameter name but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('track record of any domain or wallet') and enumerates the data returned. It distinguishes itself functionally from most siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with nearby tools like dyoe_verify or dyoe_intel, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'a credit score for counterparties' implies a use case for evaluating counterparties before transacting, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives. Usage is left to inference.

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