qm_data_dns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so well: price ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402), authoritative 402 challenge, two-phase flow, and explicit safety guarantees (never pays, never touches private keys, never holds funds, resale permitted). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a no-annotation 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?

Front-loads purpose before pricing and mechanics, and each sentence contributes (use cases, price/challenge, two-phase flow, safety, resale). Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must cover the operation and payment contract, which it does comprehensively. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape of the returned DNS data, though for this kind of lookup that is a minor omission.

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% and the schema already describes 'payment' thoroughly, so baseline is 3; the description adds sequencing context (omit on first call to receive requirements, sign externally, re-call) and frames the payment param as a forwarded payload, which clarifies intent beyond the field description.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('DNS records for a domain') and names three concrete use cases (MX verification before mail, infra recon, pre-flight checks), which cleanly separates it from the many qm_data_* siblings like weather or crypto.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use scenarios and an unambiguous two-phase invocation protocol (call without 'payment', then re-call with the payload). It does not, however, point to any alternative or exclusionary condition versus sibling tools.

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