qm_data_geocode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the price ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402), states the live 402 challenge is authoritative, explains the two-phase payment handshake, and explicitly asserts the tool never pays, never touches private keys, and never holds funds. It even grants resale rights on the output. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before committing funds.

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 the core purpose, then layers cost, procedure, and safety in descending priority. It is somewhat dense and long, but each sentence (price, two-phase flow, no-custody guarantee, resale) carries distinct value, so little is wasted.

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 or annotations exist, so the description must carry the load; it covers the payment protocol, cost, safety profile, and confirms 'the data comes back in the tool result.' It stops short of describing the actual coordinate/address response shape, leaving a minor gap.

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 q, lat, lon, and payment are all already documented in the schema, including the two-phase payment semantics. The description reinforces the payment flow but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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+resource ('Place name to coordinates (and reverse)') and immediately positions the tool in the ecosystem as the on-ramp for the weather, ISS-pass, and astronomy tools that consume lat/lon. An agent can distinguish it from qm_data_weather or qm_data_astronomy without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: it names the downstream tools that need lat/lon and prescribes the exact two-phase procedure (first call without 'payment' to fetch live requirements, then re-call with the signed payload). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative for pure paid-data flows like qm_buy, so it falls just short of a 5.

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