x402node_supply_campaign

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns IOCs, compromised versions, remediation, and mentions pricing. However, it does not state if the operation is read-only, whether permissions are required, or any side effects. It provides some behavioral context but not full transparency.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences. The first sentence covers purpose and content, the second adds context, and the third notes pricing. No redundant information; every sentence 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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns (IOCs, etc.), and where to get the ID. It could be improved by describing the return structure, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its purpose.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the ID format (e.g., 'mini-shai-hulud-tanstack-2026-05') and sourcing from /supply/ioc-list, which aids in correct parameter usage beyond the schema alone.

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 starts with 'Supply chain campaign detail by id' which clearly states the action (detail) and resource (campaign). It lists specific contents (IOCs, compromised versions, remediation) and context (incident response). This distinguishes it from siblings like x402node_supply_ioc-list (list) and x402node_supply_ioc-scan (scan).

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 indicates 'For incident response' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that usage is clear.

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