qm_data_sleep_tip

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 richly: it discloses the $0.01 USDC price on Base via x402, the two-phase payment flow, that the live 402 challenge is authoritative, that the tool never signs, holds funds, or touches private keys, and that resale is permitted. This is unusually transparent for a paid data 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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's identity and then moves into payment mechanics and safety guarantees. It is longer than typical, but most sentences earn their place by explaining a complex paid workflow; only the resale-permission sentence feels slightly peripheral to invocation.

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 payment complexity, absent annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly: it explains the data returned, rotation behavior, two-phase payment sequence, and custody risks. The only minor omission is the exact return format, but the description states the data comes back in the tool result, which is sufficient for this tool type.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the payment workflow and rotation context but adds little semantic detail about the 'index' parameter or payment payload beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific resource and scope: a genuine sleep-hygiene tip drawn from a rotating collection of 12 habits, rotating daily. This clearly identifies what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling sleep or data tools such as qm_sleep_recommend or qm_sleep_queue.

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?

It gives explicit two-phase invocation guidance: call without 'payment' to receive live payment requirements, then re-call with the base64-encoded x402 payload. This is clear procedural context, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling sleep or data tools, nor does it describe when not to use it.

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