Get Payment Profile

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions. A score of 4 is appropriate as the description contributes useful behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action (resolve and fetch). Perfectly concise for the information density.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the input and what the tool does. Minor omission: no mention of error behavior if ENS name does not exist. But overall complete for a simple read operation with good annotations.

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% and parameter description already provides 'ENS name (e.g. vitalik.eth)'. The tool description adds context about resolving the name and fetching a payment profile, giving operational meaning. This elevates the baseline from 3 to 4.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and resource 'ENS name' and specifies the output fields: address, avatar, preferred chain/token, stealth meta-address. This distinguishes it from siblings like generate-stealth-address or register-ens-name.

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 usage: when you have an ENS name and need payment profile details. It doesn't explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives, but the context of siblings makes it clear. A score of 4 reflects clear context without exclusions.

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