oracle_grounding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 0.035 USDC cost, the cryptographic signing, the EIP-712 scheme, the verifier contract, and how the signature can be checked on-chain or off-chain. It omits rate limits, failure/refund behavior, and auth flow specifics, keeping it short of a 5.

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 core capability sentence is front-loaded and the remaining content is organized as scannable bullets. The pipeline enumeration is dense but each clause adds real information; nothing is filler.

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 paid, signing oracle tool with an output schema and full param coverage, the description supplies cost, return shape, and verification path. It could still say more about the payment/auth prerequisite and error modes, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 query, max_sources, auth_token_or_tx, and target_schema_json. The description adds only the cost figure (0.035 USDC) that loosely relates to the payment param, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete multi-step pipeline (web search, markdown extraction, Gemini JSON structuring, EIP-712 signing) that clearly states what the tool does. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_web_quick or clean_web_content by adding the signed-attestation step, but it never names a sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition: 'when an autonomous agent or smart contract requires verified, tamper-proof ground truth from the live web.' That is good context, but there are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., search_web_quick vs deep_research_topic), so the agent must infer which sibling to pick.

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