get_pricing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool is free and specifies the payment method (x402, USDC on Base), but does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The behavioral context is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with 'Free:' and immediately states the purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it returns service status and pricing, and the payment method. The sibling tool is mentioned in context, aiding selection. Minor gaps include lack of detail on what 'status' encompasses, but overall complete for a simple tool.

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 has no parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (status and price) beyond the empty schema, effectively compensating for the lack of parameter information.

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 the specific verb 'returns' and clearly identifies the resources: WalletTriage service status and current price per risk query. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_address_risk' by focusing on pricing and status rather than risk assessment.

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 description implies usage for obtaining pricing information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'check_address_risk'. No alternative names or exclusion criteria are provided.

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