get_human_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes authentication requirements ('Requires a registered agent API key'), cost implications ('pay $0.05 per view'), and the payment alternative method. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or response format details.

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 description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and data scope, the second covers authentication requirements and payment alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with essential information, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about what data is returned, authentication methods, and cost alternatives. It could be more complete by mentioning response format or error cases, but it covers the essential aspects well given the tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples for human_id or agent_key). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full profile of a human', specifying the data included (contact info, wallet addresses, fiat payment methods, social links). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_human' or 'search_humans' by emphasizing the comprehensive nature of the profile data.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get the full profile') and provides a clear alternative ('pay $0.05 per view via x402 (USDC on Base) by including an x-payment header'), helping the agent choose between authentication methods. It also mentions the prerequisite 'Requires a registered agent API key'.

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