Get a paid service's full record

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'Free, read-only' is largely redundant. However the description adds genuinely non-obvious interpretation context: every timestamp has an _iso twin, and on-chain counts reflect the seller's shared wallet rather than this endpoint — real behavioral detail an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: contents first, then the decision-driving use case, then the interpretive caveats. Front-loaded and every clause carries 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?

Output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and the one parameter is fully documented. The description fills the remaining gap — how to read timestamps and wallet-level counts — so nothing needed for correct interpretation is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example id, so the schema does the work. The description only restates 'one listing id' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific resource and scope — 'Full record for one listing id' — then enumerates exactly what the record contains (request/response schemas, sample_query, 402 terms, reputation, paid_verification). An agent can distinguish this from find_paid_service or resolve_endpoint without opening a schema.

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?

'Useful before paying: it shows the exact request shape and current reliability' gives a clear selecting condition and timing for invocation. It does not name a sibling as the alternative or state when to avoid this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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