get_ripple_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the endpoint is paid ($0.01), that only location-only cards are returned, and that specific fields are withheld. This goes well beyond a generic wrapper description, though it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint, then efficiently lists pricing, included fields, and excluded fields. No redundancy or filler words are present.

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?

For a tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return payload (signal IDs, bands, unlock URLs) and the notable cost. While it could mention pagination or response structure, the schema already notes the limit cap, and the description is sufficiently complete for a thin wrapper.

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% with descriptive entries for q, limit, and scope, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a thin wrapper for GET /ripple/index and specifies exactly what it returns (location-only Ripple index cards with signal IDs, bands, unlock URLs) while withholding companies, employee counts, commercial angles, and impact paths. This distinct scope separates it from sibling tools like get_gold_signals or search_company_context, which focus on different data.

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?

Usage is implied: if you need location-only Ripple index data, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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