zkapi_get_kit

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the call is free, that proof generation happens caller-side with the supplied WASM + zkey, and that nothing is charged to inspect. That is exactly the kind of cost/side-effect disclosure an agent needs before wiring a payment flow. It omits whether authentication or an API key is required and says nothing about the response shape (acceptable, since there is no output schema, but the omission still caps the score).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause about file types (WASM, zkey, Groth16) or capabilities earns its place. Minor redundancy between 'Free' and 'cost nothing to inspect' is the only waste.

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, presumably read-only manifest fetch with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what the manifest covers, what resources it references, and the cost profile. It would be stronger if it mentioned prerequisites (auth, whether a deposit must precede it) or what the caller should do after fetching the kit.

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?

The input schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there are zero parameters to document; the baseline for a zero-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required by presenting this as a plain manifest fetch.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('zkAPI prover kit manifest'), then enumerates the manifest's contents (USDC deposit, Groth16 spend proofs via WASM + zkey, private payment to zkapi-gated agents). That is far more specific than a generic 'get info' tool. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like zkapi_pay_privately_info or zkapi_health, which overlap with the 'pay any zkapi-gated agent privately' clause.

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: an agent can infer it should call this when starting zkAPI integration work (depositing USDC, generating proofs). There is no explicit 'call this before X' or 'for the paid flow use zkapi_pay_privately_info instead' routing, despite several zkapi_* siblings appearing in the tool list.

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