how_to_seal_paid

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description supplies behavioral facts annotations cannot: exact cost ($0.0045 USDC per seal), the payment rail (x402 on Base), that the action goes into a public transparency log, and that receipts can be verified offline. It also contrasts rate limits against the free sibling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus one short alternative clause — no filler. Slightly dense with parentheticals (price, rail, free-tier limit), but each parenthetical carries decision-relevant 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 zero-parameter documentation tool with an output schema, the description delivers everything an agent needs before calling: what it returns, the payment requirement, the network, and the fallback. Return-value details are correctly left to the output schema.

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 the schema cannot carry semantic load and the baseline is 4. The description references a 'body schema' it exposes, which is useful orientation, but adds no per-field syntax details beyond that pointer.

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 deliverable — instructions for paid seals — and enumerates exactly what the instructions cover: endpoint, body schema, payment flow, and offline receipt verification. It also names the sibling free alternative (seal_action_demo), so an agent can distinguish it from the demo-sealing tool 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for paid, unlimited seals; use seal_action_demo for the free path, with the concrete constraint '5/day/IP'. Both the when-to-use and the alternative condition are stated rather than inferred.

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