DYOE Trust Check ($0.01)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added disclosure of price ($0.01 USDC on Base), payment mechanism (x402), and return fields (verdict, trust_score, domain age, red_flags) is valuable and exceeds the structured annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose before return values and pricing. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return values, and payment details. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already documents the single target parameter. The description repeats '?target=domain' and only loosely suggests broader target types (website/business/wallet), but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (website, business, wallet) with a clear outcome (scam detection, fraud/phishing/rug-risk screening). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as dyoe_reputation or dyoe_intel, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: 'before an agent trusts or pays it'. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, so it lacks the explicit when-not/alternatives guidance that would earn a 5.

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