An ADVISORY execution plan for moving money — it never moves money: no keys, no signing, no broadcast (PAID $0.05)

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the $0.05 x402/USDC charge on eip155:8453 and the guarantee that no keys, signing, or broadcast occur. What is missing is whether the fee is charged per call or per successful plan, and what the returned plan actually contains.

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, no padding, and the critical 'never moves money' safety framing is front-loaded. The only inefficiency is that the description is essentially a verbatim restatement of the title plus one remote-route line, so a small amount of space carries no new 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the payment/safety framing is present. But for a 3-parameter, nested-object, open-world, paid tool, the description leaves the two most opaque parameters unexplained and gives no hint about what a caller must supply to get a usable plan.

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 only 33% and the description adds zero parameter guidance — intent, rail_table, and constraints are never mentioned, and rail_table/constraints are untyped objects with additionalProperties and no documentation anywhere. With low coverage the description was obligated to compensate and does not.

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 deliverable — an advisory execution plan for moving money that performs no signing or broadcast — which is a meaningful distinction an agent can act on. It stops short of 5 because there is no explicit verb framing ('returns a plan for...') and no differentiation from the near-twin sibling v1_settlement_route_advice, leaving the agent to guess which advisory-plan tool to pick.

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?

It states the price and the endpoint but never says when to choose this over v1_settlement_route_advice, v1_a2a_settlement, or v1_agent_treasury_commit. No prerequisites, no call-order guidance (e.g. whether a quota preflight or rate lookup should precede it), no exclusions.

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