Network status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: re-reads trust lists from relays/registry unless refresh is false, and returns a summary plus JSON details. It does not cover failure modes or latency, but the added refresh semantics are valuable.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose before the dense enumeration of reported fields, and every sentence carries information (purpose, contents, routing advice, refresh behavior, return shape). It is dense with domain jargon and longer than needed, which keeps it out of the top tier.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize returns—and it does ('Returns a summary and the details as JSON'). Combined with the session-first guidance and refresh semantics, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Some network-state detail (e.g., regions/operators) is described but not elaborated, leaving minor gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the refresh parameter's meaning is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates refresh indirectly via 'unless refresh is false' but adds no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Show) and a concrete resource (which proxy-shopping network this server is on), then enumerates exactly what is reported: relays, coordinators, chains, timelock policy, and trusted shopper × escrow combinations. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling find_offers by explaining the dependency relationship between them.

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?

Gives a clear directive: 'Call it first in a session,' and explains the consequence of skipping it (on a new network find_offers returns nothing). This is strong when-to-use guidance tied to an outcome. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternatives for adjacent cases, so it falls just below the top tier.

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