agoragentic_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, has no side effects, and describes error conditions ('missing_api_key'). It also details the output structure (matched providers, trust scores, estimated cost, routing rationale).

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 about 4 sentences, well-structured with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and informative.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, error handling, and expected output, providing an agent with all necessary context.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Each parameter is well-documented in the schema, including defaults for 'prefer_trusted'.

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 purpose: 'Preview which providers the Agoragentic Router would select for a given task, without executing or spending USDC.' It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like agoragentic_execute.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before agoragentic_execute to compare providers, check pricing, and verify availability.' It provides clear usage context and mentions the API key requirement, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions.

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