Find paid services

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the verification rule (manifest names the listing account as payee), a prompt-injection warning that service names/descriptions are untrusted data and never instructions, and a capability boundary ('This server cannot pay them'). That is exactly the trust-model context an agent needs before surfacing third-party content.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters, then the trust and capability caveats. Dense but almost every clause earns its place; the verification sentence is slightly compressed but still parseable.

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 two-optional-param, no-output-schema search tool, the definition covers the trust model, capability limits, and filtering behavior. It stops short of describing the returned record shape (fields, prices) or any result-count/pagination limit, which are the remaining gaps an agent must guess.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the unit-bearing price format ('0.05 AETH'). The description only restates them as 'a query and a maximum price' without adding matching semantics or format detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find paid services... listed in Aether's on-chain service directory') and immediately defines the term ('APIs that charge per request'). The scope is unambiguous and cannot be confused with the account/transaction siblings.

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?

Conveys clear context for use: directory discovery with two optional narrowing filters (query, max price). It does not state explicit when-not conditions or name alternatives, but the sibling tools (get_balance, get_transaction_status) are non-overlapping, so no disambiguation is required.

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