Signed Research

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one genuine contribution beyond annotations is the cost model (0.50 USD via x402 on base USDC, eip155:8453), which is materially useful for an agent deciding to call. It omits latency, rate limits, whether the signature is on the response, and any auth/settlement handshake.

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 and front-loads the name, but the first line is pure duplication of the title and therefore does not earn its place. The only substantive content is the route/price sentence, which is appropriately terse.

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 needn't be explained. However, for a paid, open-world research endpoint among ~100 siblings, the description leaves the agent unable to predict what a call yields or when it is the right choice — the core job is unfinished.

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 coverage is nominally 100%, but the only parameter description is the stub 'Query parameter `topic`.' — it adds no semantics (free-text? taxonomy? length limits?). The tool description likewise says nothing about what a topic accepts, so an agent gets no real guidance despite the coverage number.

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 of the description is the title repeated ('Signed Research') plus a transport line (GET /v1/signed-research). Neither states a verb or what the tool actually produces — 'research' what, returning signed what? It does not distinguish this from close siblings like v1_research_attested_brief, v1_bio_research_reviews, or v1_data_signed_snapshot.

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 statement of when to call this vs the many research/attest/verify siblings, and no prerequisites beyond the price line. The x402 payment note implies a paid call but gives no guidance on preflight (e.g. v1_quota_preflight, v1_preflight, v1_budget_preflight) before spending.

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