Multi-channel social-signal search (PAID $0.02)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations do not carry: a $0.02 charge via x402 on eip155:8453 and the remote GET route. It still says nothing about rate limits, failure modes on payment, or what a "channel" is, so it adds some value but stops well short of rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

The text is short and front-loaded with the title, so it is not bloated. But the first line merely duplicates the title verbatim and the second line only carries route and pricing data, meaning very little of the token budget is spent on information an agent actually needs.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the payment/route details are a helpful addition. Still, for a search tool whose parameters are undocumented placeholders and where zero params are required, the description omits the accepted channel set, query syntax, and default behavior for `limit` — gaps an agent must guess at before paying $0.02.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. That said, the schema descriptions are pure placeholders ("Query parameter `q`."), and the description does nothing to compensate — `channels` in particular would benefit enormously from knowing which channel identifiers are accepted (such as an enum or free-text names). Marginal value over 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 phrase "Multi-channel social-signal search" gives a verb (search) and a resource (social signals across channels), which is more than a bare restatement of the name. However, "social-signal" is never defined and the agent cannot tell whether it covers posts, sentiment, mentions, or engagement metrics. It is distinguishable from most siblings by topic, but the substance of the operation remains opaque.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to any of the many sibling tools. The only steering signal is the price tag, which tells the agent it costs money but not when it is the right pick over, say, v1_synthesis_verdict or v1_market_snapshot.

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