verify_fair_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about it being a tamper-evident record with hashing and the PTKA philosophy, enhancing understanding beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 bilingual and includes a lengthy explanation of the PTKA concept. While front-loaded with the key action, it contains verbose philosophical context that could be trimmed for an agent.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the concept but lacks explicit details about the return format (e.g., fields like price, hash, timestamp). An agent might need more structural information to invoke 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 fully documents the single parameter 'work'. The description does not add additional meaning or usage details beyond the schema description.

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 returns a fair price with a SHA-256 hash for tamper-evidence, emphasizing verification of price authenticity. It distinguishes from siblings by its focus on cryptographic proof and the PTKA concept.

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 explicitly says 'Use when an agent needs to verify price authenticity.' It implies a specific use case but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or compare to sibling tools like audit_estimate or red_flag_check.

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