logicnodes_compliance_sentry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions it is 'autonomous', checks against rules, returns attestation hash and compliance score, and discloses cost ($0.01 USDC). However, it does not clarify if it is read-only or creates records, nor what happens on non-compliance.

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 description is very concise, with four short statements that front-load the main purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (attestation hash and compliance score). It lists the regulations checked and the cost. However, it lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but overall is sufficiently complete for a simple compliance check tool.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool performs 'regulatory attestation' and 'checks action against MiCA, EU AI Act, and US EO compliance rules', with specific verb 'Checks' and resource 'compliance rules'. It distinguishes from siblings like logicnodes_sig_verify and logicnodes_gas_oracle which serve different purposes.

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 description implies it is used for agent transactions needing compliance checks, mentioning cost per check, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., inference_attest) or when not to use it (e.g., if no regulatory jurisdiction applies).

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