x402_holidays

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the cost ($0.01 USDC/call), which is useful but not behavioral. It does not describe what happens for invalid inputs, missing data, response format, or any side effects. For a read-only data retrieval tool, this is a significant gap since the agent has no idea what to expect from the call.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the cost, which is an important operational detail. It has zero fluff and is easy to parse. It could arguably be even more informative, but for what it covers, it is well-structured.

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?

With two simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of context beyond the parameter names. It fails to specify the output format, whether the tool returns a list, how errors are handled, or any limitations. An agent calling this tool would not know if the result is a JSON array, a summary, or something else. This is a notable gap for a tool that otherwise has minimal complexity.

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 both parameters (year and country), so the schema already explains them adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it merely restates that holidays are by country and year. Thus, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting and the description offers no additional context.

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 states the resource ('Public holidays') and the parameters (by country and year) clearly. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like weather or stock by naming the specific domain. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', which leaves slight ambiguity about the exact operation (e.g., fetching a list vs. a single date).

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 the tool is for retrieving public holidays, which is obvious from the name and context. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the sibling tools are so distinct (weather, crypto, etc.) that confusion is unlikely. No explicit 'use when...' guidance is given, so it relies on the agent inferring the purpose.

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