fdc_web2json_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well by disclosing that the tool quotes a fee, submits on-chain only under specific conditions, and otherwise returns a prepared request. It could add more on side effects or failure modes, but the conditional submission behavior is clearly communicated.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second explains the preparation and fee quote, and the third covers the conditional submission behavior. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the response format beyond 'returns the prepared request,' nor does it cover most request parameters or connect the tool to the broader FDC attestation/proof lifecycle. An agent would need significant additional context to invoke this correctly in all cases.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, but it only names three of eight parameter categories: URL, jq filter, and ABI signature. It leaves network, body, headers, http_method, and query_params unexplained, and does not clarify how the jq filter and ABI signature interact.

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 prepares an FDC Web2Json attestation request (URL + jq filter + ABI signature) through a Flare-hosted verifier, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself with them, but the Web2Json scope and 'request' vs. 'verify' distinction make it reasonably distinguishable.

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 when to use the tool: when turning any public web API into a verifiable fact. It also gives useful conditional behavior around FLARE_PRIVATE_KEY and submission permission, but it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as the generic fdc_request_attestation or fdc_verify_web2json.

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