call_affiliate_product

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

Discloses key behaviors: handles payment (USDC on Base), uses Pyrimid affiliate routing with fallback to direct x402 if affiliate_id invalid, and costs USDC per call. Without annotations, this provides sufficient transparency for the agent.

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, front-loaded with main purpose, followed by key details on payment and cost. No redundant or extraneous information. 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?

Lacks description of the return value/response format, which is important for a paid tool. Although cost info is referenced to another tool, the output of the call itself is not described. Given no output schema, this is a gap.

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 already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. The tool description adds context about affiliate routing and payment but does not augment individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Call a paid x402 API product') and the resource (paid API product with automatic affiliate attribution). It distinguishes from sibling tools like estimate_commission and get_opportunity_details, which handle estimation or details rather than making the actual call.

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?

Implies usage context by mentioning payment and affiliate attribution, and references get_opportunity_details for cost info. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or specify when not to use this tool.

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