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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that amounts are valued at today's token prices and that the tool includes comprehensive distribution data.

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 front-loaded and information-dense, with no filler. The second sentence slightly restates the content categories from the first sentence, but it serves as an explicit usage trigger.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the data categories returned, the dynamic valuation context, and the user intents that should invoke it. No important calling context 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on content rather than nonexistent inputs.

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 resource: an overview of cp0x, including mission, values, sites, channels, 2025 figures, and distributions with token amounts. It is specific about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as list_deals or get_leaderboard.

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?

It gives explicit triggering questions: what cp0x is, what it gave users, and where to find sites and channels. That is clear usage context, but it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for narrower requests.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results split into 'declared' and 'observed' restrictions, which is genuinely new context, but says nothing about the shape or size of the response.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, nothing padded. The second sentence partially restates the first, keeping it just short of maximally tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of hinting at return content; 'declared and observed' does part of that job but leaves the result structure, and behavior when no country is supplied, to inference. Adequate for a simple 2-parameter read, but not complete.

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 100%, with both parameters documented in-schema (ISO-3166 alpha-2 code, protocol name/identifier). The description's "optionally for a country" adds only the notion of optionality, already carried by default null in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads 'declared and observed geo-restrictions' for a DeFi interface/protocol. The 'declared and observed' pairing is informative. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling list_restricted_interfaces, leaving ambiguity about which to use.

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?

"Use this when checking a protocol's interface restrictions, optionally for a country" gives an implied trigger condition but offers no exclusions or alternatives. With list_restricted_interfaces in the sibling set, an explicit routing statement would have been valuable.

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

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return context by noting that the response includes the deal description, races, and links containing a cp0x referral code.

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 core action and followed by precise usage guidance. Every clause adds relevant information without repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and partial return content, though it does not fully describe the response shape or failure behavior.

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 100%, so the slug parameter is already fully documented. The description only restates that the slug must be known, adding no extra format or syntax guidance beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve a cp0x deal with its description and races. It does not explicitly name the sibling list_deals as the discovery alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It clearly states when to use the tool: when a deal slug is known and full details are needed. This implicitly separates it from list_deals, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the response includes column definitions and that it applies to a known deal and race, but it does not describe return rows, pagination, or access constraints beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences and front-loads the action and resource. Every sentence contributes either purpose or usage context, with no filler.

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 read-only lookup with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the leaderboard and its column definitions. It could be slightly richer about what the returned rows contain or how the top limit affects output, but the schema covers the latter.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the deal-and-race context but does not add format, default, or limit semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a cp0x race leaderboard and its column definitions.' The phrase 'for a known deal and race' scopes the tool away from broader listing tools such as list_races and list_deals, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: 'Use this when viewing standings for a known deal and race.' It does not state when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that returned links embed a cp0x referral code, but says nothing about behavior when the venue is not found or how the lookup is resolved.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and then the selection condition. No filler.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description says what is returned (referral code and link, in the cp0x catalog) and when to call it. Only the not-found behavior and output shape are unstated, which are minor gaps.

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% and the venue parameter already documents 'Venue name or deal slug to match.' The description only restates 'named venue,' adding no format, matching, or ambiguity-resolution detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a precise verb (Find) and resource (a venue's referral code and link) and scopes it to the cp0x catalog, which is unlike any sibling such as get_deal or list_deals. An agent can tell this is a referral-code lookup without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when a user requests referral details for a named venue.' It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the trigger condition is clear enough for selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the repositories are public, open-source, and from GitHub, but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or return shape; with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool purpose and followed by usage guidance. There is no wasted text.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully documented optional parameter, the description provides enough context for selection. It does not describe return values, which would be useful since no output schema exists, but this is a minor gap.

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 single optional 'kind' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including enum values and the effect of omitting it. The description does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('public open-source repositories of cp0x ... from GitHub'), with clear domain scope. The open-source/public/GitHub framing distinguishes it from sibling tools about restricted interfaces or x402 resources.

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?

Gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when looking for cp0x interfaces, tools or source code.' It does not name when-not conditions or specific alternative siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that results carry prices and tags, which is useful since there is no output schema, but it omits pagination, result size, or any other behavioral context.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the usage hint.

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, read-only, single-optional-param list tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is largely sufficient; the only mild gap is the absence of return-format/pagination detail, though the description does name the fields returned.

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% and the only parameter (tag) is fully documented in the schema as 'Resource tag to filter by.' The description mentions tag filtering but adds no syntax, case-sensitivity, or multi-tag semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List cp0x x402 resources') plus the returned fields ('with prices and tags'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_x402_facilitators. It does not explicitly name an alternative, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It offers a when-to-use clause ('finding available cp0x x402 resources or filtering them by tag'), but this largely paraphrases the purpose. No alternatives or exclusions are named despite a related sibling (list_x402_facilitators) existing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail, that returned links include a cp0x referral code, but says nothing about result ordering, total counts or empty-result behavior.

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 compact sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, then the usage condition. No filler.

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 read-only list tool with annotations and a fully described schema, the essentials are present, and the referral-code note is a nice addition. With no output schema, the description could still say more about the returned list shape or whether results are capped.

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 100%, with limit and query both fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'optional venue filtering' loosely aligns with the query parameter but adds no syntax or matching detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list cp0x referral deals, with optional venue filtering. It partially distinguishes itself from get_deal by framing this as catalog browsing, but does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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?

Explicitly says to use it when looking for deals by venue or browsing the deal catalog, giving clear context for selection. It stops short of naming get_deal as the alternative for a single lookup, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that results carry dates and prizes; it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering, which would have been genuinely additive for a list tool.

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 dense sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the filtering context second; no filler or redundancy.

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-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to scope it. Only ordering and pagination behavior are left unstated.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the slug filter and the status enum with the default-omit semantics. The description's "optionally for one deal" merely restates the slug parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("List cp0x races") and states the returned content (dates and prizes), so an agent can distinguish it from deal-, interface-, and leaderboard-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for related needs, but the resource itself is unambiguous.

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?

"Use this when finding active or completed races, optionally for one deal" gives explicit usage context and maps both parameters to intent. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come from the cp0x monitor and cover 'declared or observed' restrictions, which is useful provenance, but it explains neither what those two categories mean nor whether data is live or cached.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint second; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though it could have used the second sentence to name the alternative tool instead of restating the monitor's role.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says what it lists and where the data comes from. It omits any indication of result shape (interface name, jurisdiction, restriction type) or volume, so an agent still cannot anticipate what comes back.

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 is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (ISO-3166 alpha-2 with pattern and maxLength), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces 'in a country' and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it – the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List DeFi interfaces') scoped to a country and to restriction status, which distinguishes it reasonably well from check_interface_restrictions. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling or say how the two differ, so it stops short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives a usage context ('identifying which interfaces the cp0x monitor reports as restricted'), which implies when to call it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names check_interface_restrictions as the alternative for per-interface lookups, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description only adds that results come from the cp0x catalog and include names and URLs; it says nothing about ordering, completeness, or failure behavior, which is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. There is minor redundancy between 'from cp0x' and 'in the cp0x catalog,' but nothing that wastes real space.

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-param read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (names and URLs) and where from, with annotations handling safety. It would be complete at 5 with a hint about result shape or ordering.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a no-argument full listing by not introducing any filtering concept.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List x402 facilitators and their URLs') plus the data source (cp0x), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It doesn't distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling list_cp0x_x402_resources, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Use this when looking up facilitator names and endpoints in the cp0x catalog' gives a clear positive usage context. There is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling to pick for adjacent needs (e.g. resources vs facilitators), so no exclusion guidance.

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