verify_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses costs ('$0.50 in USDC on Base, paid from your wallet'), processing constraints ('URLs are not fetched'), output behavior ('No single verdict'), and execution order ('payment settles before the models run'). This is unusually transparent for a tool description.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: core action and output first, then the verdict expectation, cost, input restriction, and payment timing. The description is tight, front-loaded, and free of filler while still packing significant operational detail.

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 the return value well enough for a tool with no output schema, and it explains cost, payment flow, and input restrictions. It falls just short of full completeness because the 'questions' parameter is unmentioned and the model families are not identified, though neither is strictly required to invoke the tool correctly.

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, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly addresses 'claim' and 'sources' via 'Check a claim against passages you paste.' The optional 'questions' parameter is never explained, so an agent has no guidance on what that parameter controls or when to supply it.

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 a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('a claim against passages you paste'), and an explicit output ('every family's vote with the quotes it relied on'). This makes the tool's function immediately identifiable and clearly distinct from its unrelated siblings, new_base_pools and assay_status.

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 gives clear usage context: use it when you have a claim and pasted passages to verify against. It also provides a firm exclusion: 'Pasted text only; URLs are not fetched.' It does not name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so explicit alternative routing is less necessary.

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