get_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so admirably: it discloses the cost (x402 USDC on Base), automatic payment handshake, and the provenance-block return, giving the agent critical behavioral context.

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 clear but includes a long list of OSF verticals that, while informative, is not essential for tool selection and adds wordiness. The core guidance is front-loaded, but the extra list makes it less concise than ideal.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (full record plus provenance), how to obtain the required parameter (via get_catalog), and the payment process. For a single-parameter tool, this is complete.

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 only defines record_id as an integer with no description. The description compensates by explaining that record_ids come from get_catalog and that they reference specific OSF records, adding practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 specific action: purchase and retrieve one verified OSF record by record_id, and highlights the unique paid/provenance aspect that distinguishes it from search and catalog 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?

It explicitly instructs to browse get_catalog first (free) to find record_ids and prices, implying this tool should be used after catalog lookup. It does not explicitly list alternative tools for free retrieval, but the paid vs free distinction is clear.

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