diav_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it marks the tool [FREE], states the paid counterpart costs bash.05 USDC via x402 on Base L2, and warns that the paid endpoint returns HTTP 402 without X-Payment. It also documents the verdict thresholds (APPROVE <2%, REDUCE 2-5% with max_safe_amount, REJECT >5%). It stops short of saying what the info response itself contains or whether the terms are binding.

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 text is dense but not front-loaded: the actual purpose of this tool appears after the validator pitch, and roughly half the content concerns a different endpoint. Nothing is pure filler, but for a zero-parameter info call the allocation of sentences is off and should lead with what this call returns.

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 no-param info tool with no output schema, the definition covers service identity, cost model, payment protocol behavior, verdict semantics and downstream input requirements — enough for an agent to decide whether to proceed. Missing only a description of the info payload itself, which the absent output schema would otherwise have to carry.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description lists pool, borrow_asset, borrow_amount and leverage with useful constraints (token0|token1, leverage 1-10), but these belong to the separate paid endpoint — helpful as follow-up context, yet a mild risk that an agent tries to pass them here.

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 does state the tool's own job — "This tool returns service info and terms" — but that sentence sits in the middle of a paragraph that largely describes a different surface (the paid /validate endpoint, its verdict logic, and its inputs). The verb+resource is specific, yet the first three sentences prime the reader to think this tool performs validation. It also does not differentiate itself from the many other *_info siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the free discovery/metadata call before hitting the paid endpoint at https://agentpaystore.com/diav/api/validate. There is no explicit "call this first", no statement of when not to use it, and no naming of an alternative tool. The paid path is named, which is a partial form of routing guidance.

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