fibonacci_sequence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a cost behavior ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is useful, but it fails to mention what the tool actually does or any side effects, output format, or error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It spends characters on a category label and cost while omitting the core function. This is not appropriate conciseness; it fails to earn its place by providing essential information.

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 no output schema and no meaningful parameter schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the Fibonacci sequence tool returns, how to use it, or any examples. The agent has barely any information to select and invoke this 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 only defines a generic 'params' object with no properties, and the description does not compensate by explaining what parameters the tool expects (e.g., number of terms). Schema description coverage is technically 100% because the only property is described, but that description ('Tool parameters as JSON object') is meaningless. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics.

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 restates the tool name ('fibonacci sequence') without a verb or explicit function. It mentions the tool category 'Other Utilities' and cost, but does not specify what the tool does (e.g., generate/calculate the sequence). This is essentially a tautology, barely more informative than the name itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, expected inputs, or any scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only additional context is the cost, which is not a usage guideline.

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