marketplace_browse

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

With no annotations supplied, 'Browse' usefully signals a read-style operation, while the description adds meaningful behavior about live 402 payment envelopes, USDC on Base L2, and listing verification. The standalone 'Free' is imprecise because it should explicitly clarify that browsing is free while agent calls may cost the displayed price, and the verification or freshness process is not explained.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the resource and returned fields, and the compliance parenthetical supplies relevant technical context without substantial filler. The final one-word sentence is efficient but ambiguous, and the dense protocol jargon could be clearer.

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 browse tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers most essential invocation and result expectations by listing the returned fields and payment model. It remains incomplete on limit behavior, ordering or pagination, and selection among closely related marketplace and directory siblings.

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 0%, and the description never compensates by explaining the sole limit parameter, its maximum, or how results are ordered or paginated. The parameter is optional, intuitively named, and has a schema default of 30, which reduces invocation risk but does not add semantic documentation.

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 gives a specific verb and resource—browsing AgentPayStore’s marketplace of verified AI agents—and enumerates the name, description, price per call, and live endpoint URL returned for each listing. Its x402 payment scope provides some differentiation from generic agent catalogs, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as list_agents or agentpaystore_directory.

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 intended context is clear: discovering verified agents with payable endpoints and comparing their prices before calling them. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to related directory, search, submission, or endpoint-checking tools.

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