proxy_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden, and it does disclose two important behaviors: it forwards an arbitrary request and it requires payment of $0.001 USDC. It still omits details like response formatting, timeout/error behavior, authentication, and whether the call has side effects on the upstream service, so it is only partially 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?

One sentence leads with the verb and resource, then adds the critical payment constraint. There is no filler, redundancy, or buried 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a non-trivial five-parameter interface, the description leaves gaps: return value shape, payment mechanism, upstream URL resolution, and sibling-tool selection are all unaddressed. The description is a good summary but not a complete guide for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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 all five parameters. The description merely lists parameter groups (method/path/query/headers/body) without adding new detail about formats, constraints, or interactions, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Forward') and resource ('method/path/query/headers/body to UPSTREAM_URL'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools server_info or get_quote, but the generic proxy nature is distinct enough that an agent can tell it apart.

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 implies this is the generic HTTP-forwarding tool and notes the payment requirement, which is a deciding factor. However, it never states when to choose this over server_info or get_quote, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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