get_pulse_narrative_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility. It discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC via x402) and explicitly lists what the detailed view contains (content items, source breakdown, stage history). The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, though it's not stated explicitly. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only tool with cost disclosure, this is reasonably transparent.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and deliverables. The second sentence provides usage guidance and cost. Every clause contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, what it returns, the prerequisite step, and the cost. Minor gaps include lack of error-handling guidance or behavior for invalid IDs, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The only parameter 'id' has 100% schema description coverage ('Narrative ID (from get_pulse_narratives)'). The description repeats this in the text ('Use get_pulse_narratives first to find narrative IDs') but adds nothing beyond what the schema already states, such as format or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'detailed view of a specific Pulse narrative', and lists the specific components returned (full content items, source breakdown, stage history). It distinguishes this from get_pulse_narratives by indicating the latter is for finding IDs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs to use get_pulse_narratives first to find narrative IDs, providing clear context on the prerequisite. It also mentions the cost, which influences usage decisions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives beyond the implied one, so it lacks an explicit exclusion clause.

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