grid402_asn

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and this is a paid endpoint (a payment_tx_hash parameter and a 0.0005 USDC Base Mainnet charge). The description never mentions that payment may be required, what happens on missing or invalid payment, whether the call is read-only, or any rate limits. The only behavioral hint is the verb 'Consulta', which weakly implies a non-mutating lookup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the domain and then lists the returned data points, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partially compensates by naming the data points returned (ASN, IP block, provider, country). However, it omits the payment-gated workflow and error behavior, which matter for a tool whose second parameter is a USDC transaction hash. Adequate but with a meaningful gap for a paid lookup.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the fallback to the requester's own public IP and the payment hash. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as accepted IP formats or when a payment hash is actually mandatory, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consulta inteligência de rede BGP') and enumerates what it identifies: ASN, allocated IP block, provider/organization and country. That enumeration separates it from sibling lookups like grid402_dns or grid402_ssl without needing the schema. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for IP/ASN ownership questions, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative (e.g. DNS or SSL siblings). The default behavior when 'ip' is omitted is documented only in the schema, not in the description.

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