detect_objects

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the underlying model (Grounding DINO), return type (bounding boxes and confidence scores), cost (5 sats), payment method (Bitcoin Lightning), and the need for no signup. It does not mention rate limits or error modes but provides sufficient behavioral context for a read-only detection 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?

The description is concise, with 3 sentences front-loading the core function. Every sentence provides value: tool capability, model name, output type, pricing, and prerequisite call. No extraneous information.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the model, pricing, and input requirements well. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., bounding box coordinates) and error handling (e.g., what if payment is unpaid or detection fails). The absence of an output schema increases the need for such description.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further detail about parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., box_threshold, text_threshold). It adds context about the model and pricing but not on parameter meaning.

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 detects and locates objects in an image using Grounding DINO, specifying the action 'detect and locate', the resource 'objects in an image', and the natural language query mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_image' by focusing on structured bounding box outputs.

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 explains when to use the tool ('describe what to find in natural language'), the pricing model ('5 sats per image'), and the prerequisite of calling 'create_payment' with a specific toolName. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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