is_cve_exploited

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the paid status ($0.05 USDC on Base), the automatic x402 payment handshake, and the response structure with provenance URLs. This is strong bonus context beyond a typical read-only query. It does not cover error handling or invalid CVE behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 moderately long but every sentence contributes: payment details, input format, output types, provenance URLs, use cases, and payment handshake. There is no fluff, though it could be tightened slightly by moving the use-case sentence earlier or merging some clauses. It remains well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, why you might use it, and the payment requirement. Edge cases (e.g., nonexistent CVE, API errors) are not addressed, but given the simplicity and the richness of the provided details, the description is sufficiently 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?

The schema only defines cve_id as a required string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by giving the required format via example: 'Pass a CVE id (e.g. CVE-2026-33017).' This is essential for correct invocation. It could add more detail (e.g., case sensitivity, whitelist of formats), but the example is sufficient.

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 whether a specific CVE is being actively exploited in the wild.' It enumerates specific outputs (KEV catalog status, EPSS score, CVSS severity, provenance URLs) and gives a concrete example input (CVE-2026-33017). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools, which are broader searches rather than direct lookups.

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 provides clear usage context by listing relevant workflows: 'vulnerability management, patch prioritization, threat intelligence, and DevSecOps agent workflows.' It also highlights the paid nature, which informs cost-sensitive decisions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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