get_pass_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return values (Pass tier, remaining balance, expiration timestamp) and the input types, but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read-only status check, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage guideline and return summary. It is efficient, though the 'Returns:' line is somewhat redundant with the output schema.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and return values. It could mention error cases or what happens if the wallet/token is invalid, but that is a minor gap.

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 schema already documents the parameter. The description adds a bit of context by mentioning the example 'WELCOME100' and the 0x... format, but it largely repeats what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool checks subscription status, remaining query quota, and validity period for an agent EVM wallet address or VIP Pass Token. It uses a specific verb ('Checks') and resource, and the usage guideline clarifies its role in verifying micropayment allowance before heavy scrape batches, distinguishing it from siblings like get_payment_info.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use to verify micropayment allowance or query entitlements before dispatching heavy scrape batches.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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