get_recalls

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: cost per call, payment method via x402, compute-first settlement that prevents billing for errors, and the requirement for EVM_PRIVATE_KEY in live mode. This goes far beyond what typical descriptions offer and gives the agent critical operational understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cost, payment, billing behavior, and requirements. Each sentence adds unique value, though the length (5 sentences) is slightly more than needed for such a simple tool. No wasted words, but it could be tightened without losing critical info.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the data source, licensing/credential requirements, cost model, payment flow, and failure policy. It even hints at return content ('full decoded vehicle folded in'). This is more than sufficient 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 input schema already describes the only parameter (vin) with a clear example. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond implying the VIN is used for the recall lookup. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 first sentence clearly states the tool retrieves merged US (NHTSA) and Canada (Transport Canada) recalls for a VIN, with the decoded vehicle info included. It distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be the only API merging both datasets, and the mention of decoded vehicle separates it from decode_vin.

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 makes clear when to use this tool: when you need recalls for a VIN, especially cross-border coverage. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools for other use cases, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know this is the recalls tool. Prerequisites like EVM_PRIVATE_KEY and live mode are provided.

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