Trust Check ($0.01)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC on Base) and the return payload (verdict, trust_score, domain age, red_flags). It does not mention failure modes or side effects, but it is a read-only check with no destructive behaviour.

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 description is two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and checks, the second specifies outputs and cost. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, schema covers it, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it does and returns. It could mention edge cases or errors, but is complete enough for basic usage.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'target' described as 'Domain/URL/wallet to verify, e.g. example.com'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if a counterparty is safe before trust or payment, with specific checks (scam, fraud, phishing, rug-risk) and outputs (verdict, trust_score, domain age, red_flags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like merchant_trust and token_intel by focusing on general trust checks rather than specific domains.

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 provides clear usage context: 'before an agent trusts or pays any website, business, wallet, or endpoint.' It implies when to use but does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives among the 15 sibling tools.

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