q402_recurring_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read ('Read'), discloses authentication requirements ('Authenticated by the configured Multichain API key - no private key required'), and details the return content. While it doesn't mention error cases or lack of mutation explicitly, the 'Read' verb and auth note provide substantial transparency. A slight deduction for not addressing potential edge cases like empty results.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The second sentence lists return fields with compact notation (e.g., 'frequency (hourly:N / daily / weekly:{day} / monthly:N / monthly:last)'), and the third provides usage + auth in one line. No fluff 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is highly complete. It covers the exact data returned, usage context, and authentication. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% (walletId is explained in the schema as optional and lowercased). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Read the user's active recurring-payment rules on their Agent Wallet' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates the exact return fields, leaving no ambiguity about its function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like q402_recurring_create by mentioning 'before authoring a new rule'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this when the user asks "what scheduled payouts do I have?" or before authoring a new rule with q402_recurring_create.' This provides clear trigger scenarios and names an alternative tool, satisfying the requirement for when/alternatives.

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