Venice Billing Usage History

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/idempotent safety) by disclosing the 64 KiB page-failure mode with no partial rows or next cursor, the cursor-format coupling, ascending ordering, and the ADMIN-key vs inference-key and x402 auth restrictions. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination model, then layered constraints, with no filler sentences. It is dense and mostly non-redundant, though a couple of points (default 10 rows, cursor/format coupling) restate what the schema already says.

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 paginated billing tool with no output schema, it covers pagination mechanics, failure behavior, auth requirements, and continuation semantics thoroughly. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly across first-page and continuation scenarios.

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 already 83%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds value by explaining that cursor continuation drops filters and that CSV cursors persist format=csv, which clarifies how cursor interacts with the other parameters beyond the schema text.

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 (walk) and resource (billing usage) plus ordering (ascending timestamp) and mechanism (cursor pagination), which is precise enough to act on. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling venice_billing_usage_analytics, so the differentiation is implied rather than named.

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 strong operational guidance: cursor continuation must omit original filters, CSV cursors encode format=csv, and the endpoint is explicitly not the deprecated /billing/usage. It also states the ADMIN key requirement and that x402 wallet auth is unsupported, which routes the caller correctly, though it never names the analytics sibling as the alternative for aggregated data.

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