how_to_seal_paid

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: this is documentation, not an action, and the paid path costs 0.0045 USDC per seal via x402 on Base with offline verification available. It stops short of saying whether the returned reference is static or whether calling it has any side effects/costs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return value and its contents, followed by the tier contrast. The parenthetical pricing detail earns its place. Slight density in the first sentence (a five-item list plus chain and protocol) but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, and with zero parameters there is no input burden. For a read-only reference endpoint, stating what the reference covers plus pricing and the free-tier boundary is sufficient to call it 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste words on nonexistent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Returns the reference for unlimited paid seals') and then enumerates exactly what that reference contains: endpoint, body schema, payment flow, offline verification. The pricing line (0.0045 USDC via x402 on Base) and the free-demo contrast make it distinguishable from seal_action_demo without opening any schema.

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 closing sentence about the free demo (5 seals/day per IP) gives the agent the implicit trigger for using this tool: when the free tier is insufficient. However, it never explicitly states the alternative ('use seal_action_demo for free trials') nor does it point at the payment siblings (prepare_gblin_payment, relay_gblin_payment, verify_gblin_authorization) that the described payment flow must involve.

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