q402_vendor_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and discloses key behaviors: read-only, free, requiring only a live API key. It explains the address-based vendor limitation, the condition for showing human names, and what fields to expect in both modes. This goes beyond typical safety hints to cover operational constraints.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence covers a specific aspect (modes, limitations, access). It is concise at ~90 words and every sentence contributes meaningful information without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two modes), the description fully explains what the agent can expect from each mode, including return fields and a key constraint. It also addresses authentication requirements and confirms read-only/free status. Without an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the `vendor` parameter toggles between two distinct result sets and what each set contains. It also clarifies the `window` default and the optional `walletId` context, enriching the schema's simple descriptions.

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: 'Vendor payment history.' It provides specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes between two modes: with a vendor address for detailed payment info and without for a leaderboard. It also explicitly answers questions like 'how much have we paid Alice so far?' making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context by explaining both invocation modes and example questions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the use cases ('which vendors get paid every month?') imply when to use this tool over siblings. The note about address-based vendors and rule labels adds an important prerequisite.

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