compare

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: the tool costs $0.02 USDC on Base. However, it does not state whether it is read-only, destructive, or any other behavioral aspects. The cost disclosure is valuable but incomplete.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes both the output and a key constraint (cost). No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the action, what the user gets (quality grades and recommendations), and a critical constraint (cost). It could add brief guidance on when to use or how results are formatted, but overall it covers the essentials.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For 'capability' and 'sort_by', the schema already explains them; the description does not elaborate further.

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 description clearly states the verb 'compare', the resource 'services', and the output includes 'quality grades and recommendations'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'quality' which likely returns a single service's quality, or 'find' which may search without comparison.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is for side-by-side comparison with a cost, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest specific siblings. Usage context is implied but not clearly defined.

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