find_paid_service

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral details: results are unified per host, each rail carries separate reputation/price/retention, and 'coming_soon' lists unmeasured chains. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate output semantics. No contradiction detected.

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 roughly 100 words and each sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds critical result-structure context, and ends with a practical recommendation. While slightly dense, it is well-organized and not bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the result structure (unified per host, per-rail metrics, coming_soon). It also covers the important caveat about verified status. Given the schema covers all parameters and the tool is a search, the description is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds extra meaning for 'chain' (explains matched_rail and per-rail reputation) and for 'verified_only' (advisory to prefer verified true). This exceeds the schema baseline, providing richer guidance for key parameters, though not all 11 are individually expanded.

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 'Search' and the resource 'Verantis's verified directory of machine-payable services'. It distinguishes from siblings: get_service likely retrieves a specific service, directory_stats likely provides statistics, and check_wallet likely checks wallet info. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 offers practical guidance: 'Prefer verified=true before paying anyone' and explains how to use 'chain' to see reputation for the actual payment rail. It implies this is the directory search tool but does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., when to use get_service for a known host). Clear usage context is present, but exclusionary guidance is missing.

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