qm_sleep_recommend

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 well: it discloses price ($0.05 USDC on Base via x402), the authoritative 402 challenge, the two-phase protocol, and explicit security guarantees (never pays, never touches private keys, never holds funds). It also discloses resale rights, which is unusual and genuinely useful behavioral 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?

The response is front-loaded (purpose first, then data-only disclaimer, price, then mechanics) and every sentence carries information an agent needs. It is longer than typical but not padded, though the security guarantees are stated twice in near-identical wording.

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 paid data tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, payment handshake, return location ('the data comes back in the tool result') and safety limits. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned track list (fields, count), which is the only remaining 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 mood, minutes, and the base64 x402 payment payload are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the mood/minutes curation intent and the payment handshake but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 first sentence states a specific resource and scope: curated sleep-track picks keyed by mood and minutes, with listen links. It distinguishes itself from data-only siblings like qm_data_sleep_tip by naming the output form, though it never explicitly contrasts with qm_sleep_queue or qm_data_sleep_tip.

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?

The two-phase flow is spelled out concretely: call without 'payment' to receive requirements, pay from your own wallet, then re-call with the payload. That is clear operational guidance, but there is no guidance on when this tool is preferable to the other sleep-related siblings.

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