Prepare a DIEM Worker Call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavior: it returns a request shape rather than executing, and highlights that the server never receives wallet private keys. It could add error behavior or prerequisites but offers valuable non-obvious 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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each clause adds value. It avoids redundancy and is well below typical verbosity.

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?

While it captures the tool's purpose and execution path, it lacks parameter-level detail and output schema specifics. The input object remains unexplained, and the 'exact HTTP request shape' is referred to without describing its format, leaving uncertainty for an agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage. The description only references 'worker selection' but doesn't explain the worker enum meaning or the input object structure. It fails to provide necessary guidance for constructing the input parameter.

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 validates worker selection and returns the exact HTTP request shape, using specific verb 'return' and resource 'HTTP request shape.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_diem_workers and quote_diem_worker, which list and quote workers respectively.

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?

It provides clear usage context by instructing to execute the request with an x402-capable client or the CDP Bazaar MCP server, and notes the server never receives private keys. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to use this over list or quote, only implying selection precedes this.

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