Post a paid task to BrainChain

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

Goes far beyond the annotations (destructive/non-idempotent/open-world) by quantifying cost (1 USDG from the server wallet on Robinhood Chain), stating the conditional delivery rule, the refund path and timing (~6 hours after grading, or after the 24h deadline), and the partial-failure state 'possiblyCharged' with recovery instructions. That is unusually complete disclosure for a paid mutation.

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?

Purpose, cost, refund, deadline, return value and failure recovery are all front-loaded and each sentence carries operational weight. Slight redundancy in restating the acceptance condition twice ('pays the model only if the work reaches the second level' and 'delivered only if Jev accepts the work') keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the return value (an order id), typical latency (results in minutes), both refund branches, and the ambiguous-charge recovery path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so brief, title and levels are already fully documented, including limits and the 'paid if it reaches the second level or better' rule. The description restates the levels grading concept and the no-browsing constraint on brief, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Pay for a task on BrainChain') and immediately explains the mechanism: Jev hires a model, grades against your levels, and pays conditionally. It is unambiguously a write/spend operation, clearly distinct from the read-only sibling brainchain_get_task, which it names.

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 routing: 'Returns an order id for brainchain_get_task' and the critical when-NOT-to-use rule 'If the reply says possiblyCharged, do not post the task again: read the order with brainchain_get_task.' This prevents a duplicate charge, exactly the kind of alternative guidance an agent needs.

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