qm_data_country

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: fixed price and rail, the x402 challenge being authoritative, the two-phase handshake, and explicit negative guarantees (never pays, never touches keys, never holds funds). Resale permission is also disclosed. This is well above the bar for an unannotated mutation-adjacent paid 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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then payment model, then protocol, then guarantees, then resale. Four sentences for a tool with this much payment complexity is reasonable, though the payment/protocol sentences are dense and could be trimmed slightly without losing information.

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 3 params, no output schema, no annotations, and a non-trivial payment protocol, the description covers what an agent needs: inputs implied, payment mechanics, safety guarantees. What is missing is error handling (e.g. what happens if payment is malformed or expired) and whether 'code' or 'name' takes precedence when both are supplied.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema cannot: it explains the payment parameter's role in the two-phase protocol and clarifies that the first call is unauthenticated/unpaid. 'code' and 'name' semantics are left to the schema, which 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 names a specific verb/resource — reference data about a country — and enumerates the exact fields returned (capital, region, income level, coordinates). It also states the intended join targets (FX, holidays, geocoding results), which distinguishes it from siblings like qm_data_fx and qm_data_holidays.

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 two-phase payment flow is spelled out clearly: call without 'payment' to get requirements, pay externally, re-call with 'payment'. The join use-case (against FX, holidays, geocoding) is named. It does not, however, distinguish when to use this vs. e.g. qm_data_wiki for country facts — a minor routing gap.

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