netintel_route_vet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that a live payment-challenge check is performed, enumerates the verdict values (ok, slow, unstable, failing), and states billing behavior ('Paid per call; not charged when the URL is not in the catalog'). It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or explicitly confirm no side effects, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its payoff, with the billing caveat placed last. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the returned artifacts (challenge check, price quote, history, trend, verdict) and the billing model, and the schema fully covers the two parameters. For a two-parameter, no-annotation tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both url and method are already fully documented in the schema, including the enum and the 'only when listed under both methods' condition. The description reinforces the URL format ('exactly as the Coinbase Bazaar lists it') but adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Check) and resource (one x402 endpoint), and enumerates exactly what comes back: payment-challenge check, price quote, 7/30/90-day check history, paying-wallet trend, and a verdict. An agent can distinguish this from netintel_route_search (find routes) and netintel_route_recommend (recommend routes) 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?

Gives a clear context of use ('before relying on it') and scopes it to a single endpoint, with the prerequisite that the URL must be given exactly as Coinbase Bazaar lists it (schema points to netintel_route_search for resource_url). It stops short of naming alternative siblings or stating explicit exclusions, so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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