daily_402

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses critical behavior: the operation is paid ('PAID ($0.001)'), requires authentication ('Requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY'), and describes the return payload. It also notes deterministic rotation, giving an insight into selection logic. Missing are potential error conditions or rate limits, but the most important safety and auth aspects are covered.

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 and front-loaded: it starts with the cost and core function, followed by return details, optional parameter, and auth requirement. Four short sentences, each adding essential information without waste.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return value (description, price, schema, example), the deterministic rotation, the optional replay feature, and the authentication prerequisite. No critical gaps remain.

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 already covers the single parameter at 100%, including format and purpose. The description's mention of 'Optional date override to replay a past day's pick' mirrors the schema description and adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool's function: 'one featured x402 endpoint per UTC day' and what it returns ('Returns what it does, its price, input schema, and a worked example'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_capabilities or get_endpoint_spec, which focus on broader discovery rather than a daily featured pick.

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 context on when to use the tool: for the daily featured endpoint, with an optional date override to replay past days. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though the daily-specific nature is implicitly distinct from siblings.

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