qm_data_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: cost ($0.01 USDC on Base), the x402 two-phase protocol, that the live 402 challenge is authoritative, and explicit non-custodial guarantees ('never pays, never touches private keys, never holds funds'). Resale rights are also disclosed — rare and genuinely useful context.

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 price, then the two-phase mechanics, then safety guarantees. Every sentence carries information, though the single dense block could be broken up for scanability.

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, so the description must stand alone — and it covers return shape, cost, payment flow and custody model. It omits failure modes (insufficient payment, missing article), which is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by framing 'payment' as part of a stateful two-phase exchange and noting the live challenge overrides the stated price. The 'topic' and 'lang' parameters gain little from the prose.

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 resource and return shape: 'Background on a person, place, company, or concept — a structured summary plus the link to the full article.' That clearly distinguishes it from qm_data_country, qm_data_astronomy and other qm_data_* siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 precise procedural guidance for the non-obvious case: call without 'payment' first to get requirements, then re-call with the payload. It does not address when to prefer this over another data source or what happens on topic-not-found, but the when-to-call flow is unambiguous.

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