Buy a vetted edge (pays x402)

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: payment mechanism (x402 with spend cap), cost (~0.05 USDC), return includes receipt, degradation to free odds, and guarantee against fabrication. No contradictions with annotations.

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 (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value.

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 description covers key aspects: what it does, cost, failure mode, dry run option, and data source (matchId from wc_fixtures). Missing details about the output format, but constraints (no output schema) justify minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so descriptions already explain parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, e.g., clarifying dry_run purpose, but does not substantially increase agent understanding.

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 uses specific verb 'Buy' and resource 'CLV-audited edge + conviction ladder' from 'LineLock', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wc_fixtures or wc_odds.

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 dry_run for testing, and mentions degradation behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide direct alternatives.

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