check_broker

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.05, x402 USDC on Base), states it's a live lookup, mentions automatic payment handling, and details return fields including a provenance URL. This exceeds typical transparency, though it omits potential failure modes or rate limits.

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 a single paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose and cost, then expanding to return fields and use cases. Every sentence contributes value, though it is longer than strictly necessary and includes marketing-like phrasing ('natural companion') that could be trimmed.

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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, cost, source, return data, verification URL, and use cases. Missing details include query input format and any error/empty-result behavior, but the description is solid for a lookup 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 schema has one parameter (query) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies query is the subject (a stockbroker, adviser, or firm) but does not explicitly state the expected input format (e.g., name or CRD number). The description adds some meaning but stops short of fully clarifying the parameter syntax.

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 function: 'Check a stockbroker, investment adviser, or brokerage firm for disciplinary history.' It specifies the resource (FINRA BrokerCheck registry) and scope (disciplinary history), and distinguishes itself from siblings like screen_entity_free by emphasizing the paid, registry-specific nature.

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 lists use cases: 'For KYC, AML, counterparty due diligence, adviser vetting, and investment fraud checks; the natural companion to the 11 authority sanctions screen.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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