DYOE Human Sign-Off ($15.00)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the weight and does it well: it discloses async behavior requiring polling, the $15.00 USDC-on-Base cost, and the x402 payment mechanism. The one blemish is the claim that pricing scales with 'the amount at stake' alongside a flat '$15.00 per call', which reads as inconsistent.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does before the operational and pricing details. Minor waste: the $15.00 price already appears in the title and is repeated in the body.

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 explains the return path (poll for the signed receipt) and covers cost and payment. The only gap is the unresolved price-scaling ambiguity, which matters because amount appears to drive it.

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 all three parameters already carry their own descriptions and examples. The description merely restates the input list and flags counterparty as required, which is already in the schema's required array. Baseline 3 is 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: a named human reviews an agent action against a checklist and signs off. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like dyoe_verify or dyoe_approve, so an agent comparing them gets no explicit 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 description implies when the tool applies (agent actions needing human sign-off) and gives operational guidance by naming the polling endpoint /api/task?id=<id>. It never states when not to use it or which sibling to pick instead, even though dyoe_verify and dyoe_approve sit right next to it.

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