viridisos__viridis_compute_toll

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'Staging preview; non-authoritative until the K3 swap,' which indicates a behavioral trait (non-production). However, it does not discuss side effects, authentication requirements, or what 'margin' and 'pass-through card cost' entail.

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 begins with a lengthy, generic ViridisOS introduction that is not tool-specific. The actual tool purpose is stated in the last sentence, making it not front-loaded. The extraneous text could be moved to a parent tool or removed.

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 tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description should clearly define the parameters and expected output. It fails to do so, leaving the user guessing what 'payee_tier' and 'amount_minor' represent and what the return value is.

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 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'payee_tier' and 'amount_minor'. The description mentions computing 'margin' and 'card cost' but does not map these to the parameters. Without this, the schema alone provides inadequate meaning.

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 includes a clear statement 'Compute the unified Viridis protocol margin (the take) + pass-through card cost for a settlement.' This specifies the action (compute) and the resource (toll/margin + card cost). However, the preceding block of generic ViridisOS text adds confusion and does not differentiate from sibling tools like viridisos__viridis_certify or viridisos__viridis_list_modules.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or context. Sibling tools exist for certification, binding, and listing, but no differentiation is given.

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