venture_play_terms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it declares the tool is free, spends nothing, takes no turn, and reads terms live off the endpoints rather than from docs, which signals freshness and no side effects. It does not describe error behavior if an endpoint is down or the shape of the response, leaving a small gap.

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 first sentence front-loads the resource and the returned fields, and the two follow-up sentences cover provenance ('read straight off the endpoints') and cost/side-effect guarantees. Slightly verbose in spots ('founding a company and for taking one business day'), but every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description enumerates what the agent will receive and explicitly states no money is spent and no turn is consumed. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs. The sentence about handing back a pay-within window and request body usefully clarifies that the payment inputs come from the response rather than the call itself.

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 ('Get') and a precisely scoped resource ('the live x402 payment terms for playing Venture'), then enumerates the returned fields (price, payee, network, asset, facilitator, pay-within window, request body) and the two actions covered (founding a company, taking one business day). That is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings such as venture_market or venture_leaderboard. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not, which is what a 5 would require.

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 strongly implied rather than stated: 'it hands you what you need to pay for yourself with an x402 payment header' tells the agent this is the step preceding a payment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use clause and no named alternative (e.g., check_x402_endpoint, get_x402_scaffold, venture_market) to route away from when this is the wrong tool.

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