steward_time

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 that the value is computed on the rail with no third-party dependency, the exact price and chain ($0.01 USDC on Base), the 402 quote-verification flow (scheme, network, USDC, Steward payee), automatic wallet settlement, spend-cap refusal, and that the payer key never leaves the machine. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a paid 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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by payment mechanics. The payment detail is long but largely earns its place for a paid tool; a little tightening of the quote-verification clause would help, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, use contexts, and — critically for a paid call — the full payment and safety model. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% — the tz parameter is fully documented in the schema with IANA examples (America/Chicago, Europe/London, Asia/Tokyo). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Current local time in any IANA time zone' — with a clear scope (any IANA zone). The sibling tools are all distinct resources (weather, fx, wiki, audio, etc.), so no confusion arises; an agent knows exactly what this returns.

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 concrete use contexts — 'scheduling, reminders, or market-window checks' — which helps an agent recognize when to reach for it. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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