Request a free sandbox key

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

The description discloses important external side effects: the key is emailed, the email may receive follow-ups, rate limits (3 keys/IP/hour, 5 per email/day), scope exclusions, and the need to set OILFLOW_API_KEY and restart after receipt. This adds substantial context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 longer than average but densely packed with essential operational details and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some repetition exists around consent and email usage, slightly preventing a top score.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: prerequisites, consent, calling conditions, scope limits, alternatives, rate limits, and post-call setup. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic weight to the email parameter via strong consent requirements and the explicit warning not to supply an address the user did not request, which goes beyond the schema's brief description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mint') and names the exact resource: a free 30-day OilFlow sandbox API key scoped to regulatory matrix and cluster endpoints. It clearly differentiates from siblings by stating which endpoint families are not covered and directing to predeal_preview for free verdicts.

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 when-to-use guidance: this is how a keyless agent gets its user onto keyed tools. It also states when not to use it via alternatives (predeal_preview for free verdict, production pricing URL) and imposes consent and rate-limit conditions.

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