salary_breakdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Costs $0.001 USDC via x402'. It does not disclose what the tool does with inputs, whether it has side effects, or what it returns. The cost note is a minimal behavioral trait, but it is insufficient for understanding the tool's operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the name, so it is concise in length. However, it suffers from under-specification: it omits essential functional details, and the sentence about cost does not contribute to understanding the tool's purpose or usage.

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?

This tool has a generic params schema, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the sole source of guidance. The description only provides a category label and a price, leaving the agent with no idea what inputs to provide, what to expect back, or how this tool fits among similar finance tools. It is completely inadequate for a tool that presumably requires structured input.

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 input schema merely has a generic 'params' object described as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which provides no specific parameter names or structure. The description offers no additional parameter semantics, so an agent cannot determine what information is needed for a salary breakdown. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 merely repeats the tool name 'salary breakdown' and labels it as 'Finance & Math tool', which is a broad category. There is no specific verb or resource indicating what the tool actually does, and it does not distinguish itself from the many other finance tools in the sibling list.

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 or when to use an alternative. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with no basis to select this tool over other finance-related siblings.

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