textokit_comparar_textos

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: cost (0.001 USDC per call), payment rail (x402 on Base), and that it is paid from the caller's wallet. However, it says nothing about the result shape, failure modes, or what "literally" implies for normalization (whitespace, unicode), which are the traits an agent most needs for a no-annotation tool.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and pricing second; nothing is redundant. The phrasing "Free sample: textokit_sample" is a little telegraphic but still efficient and useful.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information — yet it never describes what a comparison returns, which is the central unknown for this tool. Pricing and the sample pointer are covered, but the return contract and comparison semantics are missing entirely.

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 parameters (original, entrega) are fully documented including the 20000 UTF-16 code-unit limit, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never clarifies that original is the reference baseline and entrega is the candidate being compared, a distinction the Spanish names only weakly convey.

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?

"Compare texts literally" gives a verb and a resource, and "literally" hints at exact/character-level comparison rather than semantic matching, which helps distinguish it from textokit_translate_es or textokit_source_bounded_summary. But it never says what the comparison actually produces (a diff, a boolean, a similarity score, a list of differences), so an agent can't fully predict the operation.

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 only routing hint is "Free sample: textokit_sample," which tells the agent where to try before paying but not when this tool is the right choice versus other siblings. There is no stated precondition (e.g., both strings must be in the same language, ordering of original vs entrega as the reference) and no 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.