DYOE Topic Summary ($0.01)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations lack: the cost model ($0.01 USDC on Base per call, paid via x402), which is effectively an auth/payment prerequisite. It omits rate limits and output characteristics.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the pricing detail. Minor waste: 'Input: ?topic=Bitcoin' duplicates the schema and the $0.01 price is already carried in the title.

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 should say something about what the summary looks like (length, format, structure), and it does not. Purpose, cost, and payment mechanism are complete enough to invoke it, but the return contract is 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Input: ?topic=Bitcoin' merely restates the schema example without adding syntax, constraints, or format meaning beyond it.

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 and resource: 'Factual summary of any topic from Wikipedia.' An agent immediately knows what the tool returns and the source domain. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling tool by name or contrast, though no sibling appears to overlap with Wikipedia summarization.

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?

'for research agents' implies a usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. There are no exclusions and no prerequisites stated beyond the payment note.

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