qm_data_weather

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: it discloses the $0.01 USDC/Base x402 price, the two-phase challenge-then-pay flow, that the live 402 challenge is authoritative, that data returns in the tool result, that the tool never pays, never touches private keys, and never holds funds, and that resale is permitted. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and payment-behavior disclosure a payment-gated tool needs.

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-loaded with purpose, then usage, then payment mechanics, so an agent gets the essential framing first. It is dense and the payment explanation slightly overlaps the schema's own 'payment' description, but every sentence is doing relevant work given the x402 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 payment-gated, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly: inputs, the two-phase payment handshake, where the data appears, and the safety/licensing posture. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 lat/lon ranges and the payment payload semantics are already fully documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description restates the two-phase payment pattern rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 (current weather plus a 7-day forecast) and its scoping input (latitude/longitude), then distinguishes itself from qm_data_geocode, which handles place names. An agent can tell what this returns and how it differs from the geocoding sibling without opening either 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?

Names concrete usage contexts (trip planning, event scheduling, location-aware tasks) and routes the agent to the alternative tool (qm_data_geocode) when it only has a place name. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a list of conditions under which it should be preferred over any other data sibling, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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