qm_data_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the price ($0.01 USDC on Base via x402), the two-phase auth/payment handshake, that the computation is local with 'no upstream to fail', and explicit non-custodial guarantees ('never pays, never touches private keys, never holds funds'). It omits error/refund behavior and payload reuse semantics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct concern (cost, two-phase flow, safety guarantees, resale rights) with no true filler. The density of payment-related detail makes it longer than average, but the length is warranted by the protocol complexity.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, it explains the payment flow and safety posture thoroughly. The main gap is return shape: it says only that 'the data comes back in the tool result', leaving the result fields unspecified despite there being no output schema to compensate.

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%, so both 'tz' and 'payment' are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the two-phase meaning of 'payment' and the IANA nature of 'tz', but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource ('Current local time in any IANA time zone') and immediately grounds it in concrete use cases (scheduling, broadcasts, market-window checks). It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling qm_data_* tools, which each cover a different data domain.

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 clear usage context (the kinds of checks this enables) and an explicit invocation protocol: call without 'payment' to obtain requirements, pay externally, then re-call with 'payment'. It does not name an alternative tool or state when *not* to use it, but the domain is narrow enough that this matters little.

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