Attested Finance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is structured data. The description does add genuinely non-annotated context — the x402 cost (0.35 USD) and payment network (eip155:8453) — but says nothing about what is mutated, what 'statement' means, or what a failure/cost-charged scenario looks like.

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?

It is short, but the first line is pure duplication of the title, so the only useful information (route and price) is buried below a wasted line rather than front-loaded.

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 not be described, but for a paid, non-idempotent, open-world finance attestation tool with three fully undocumented parameters and no stated purpose, the description leaves the agent unable to call it correctly or know what it will receive for the 0.35 USD charge.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for 'period', 'company', or 'statement' (which isn't even typed in the schema). The description does nothing to compensate for an entirely undocumented parameter set.

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 body is just the title 'Attested Finance' repeated, which is a tautology rather than a verb+resource statement. The only substantive content is the remote route and price, which tells an agent how to pay but not what the tool produces, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like v1_audit_evidence_package or v1_decision_attest.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of any alternative among the ~120 sibling tools. The agent has no basis for choosing this over v1_finance_precision or the other attest/evidence tools.

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