attest_price_event

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: it is PAID ($0.25 USDC) and 'pays automatically from the configured wallet.' It also instructs the user to keep the decision_id and explains the self-contained nature of the artifact. This is valuable contextual information not present in annotations.

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 yet information-dense. Each sentence contributes: cost, output contents, use case, decision_id handling, self-containment, and payment behavior. It is front-loaded with the most important fact (PAID) and follows a logical structure, with no fluff or repeated information.

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 that the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by listing exactly what is returned (resolve_price_event's output plus decision_id, hash, candles). It also covers cost, the verification pathway, and the requirement to retain the decision_id. This is complete enough for an agent to correctly decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters like asset, operator, or threshold, nor does it explain the meaning of 'mode' or time window formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description is not misleading but also adds no parameter-specific value.

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's purpose: it produces an attested, citable settlement record by returning everything resolve_price_event returns plus a signed decision_id, integrity hash, and outcome-determining candles. It explicitly positions itself as the 'citable artifact' for defending to counterparties, distinguishing it from the plain resolve_price_event and other sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use it when the answer may later have to be defended to a counterparty, not when you just need to know.' It also explains the verification alternatives (decode_decision_id free, verify_decision for $0.02), providing actionable context for choosing this tool versus cheaper alternatives.

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