navi_service_scout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking criteria (30-day usage, price fit, metadata quality), return fields (price, network, why_recommended), live data source, and the payment cost ($0.005 USDC per call) — important for agents to know this is a paid operation. It does not mention auth or side effects, but those are less relevant for a discovery 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then ranking/return details, then cost. Every sentence adds value — no filler or repetition of schema field names.

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?

For a tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers return format (top 3, with price, network, why_recommended), ranking logic, and the paid nature. Minor omissions like error handling or behavior when no matches are found prevent a perfect score, but for the tool's complexity this is solid.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds 'Describe what you need' reinforcing the task parameter but provides no additional semantic detail for category or max_price beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with 'Finds the best paid services for a task', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., navi_translate, navi_crypto_prices) by focusing on service discovery rather than direct task execution.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need a paid service ('Describe what you need') and returns ranked recommendations. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the use case is obvious and distinct from the other utility tools.

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