giskard-oasis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the pricing algorithm (karma tiers affecting satoshi cost) and payment method (Lightning), but omits other behavioral traits like idempotency, what happens after payment, or cache behavior.

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?

Three tightly structured sentences: one for purpose, one for the parameter with its semantics, and one for the pricing tiers table. Every sentence delivers unique value with no redundancy, appropriate for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately avoids return value speculation. It covers the essential domain-specific context (karma tiers and cryptocurrency units) needed to use the tool effectively, though it could briefly note this is a prerequisite step before entering the oasis.

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 has 0% description coverage (agent_id lacks a description field). The tool description compensates effectively by explaining that agent_id is an optional identity string in 'Giskard Marks' and explicitly mapping how karma values affect pricing, adding crucial business logic missing from the schema.

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 gets a 'Lightning invoice to access Giskard Oasis', using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_arbitrum_invoice' by specifying the Lightning network, and from 'enter_oasis' by clarifying this generates a payment invoice rather than granting access directly.

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 explains when to provide an agent_id (optional identity for karma-based discounts) and details the pricing tiers, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this Lightning invoice tool versus the 'get_arbitrum_invoice' alternative or the relationship to 'enter_oasis'.

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