x402node_supply_ioc-list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must compensate. It discloses beta status, active verification, and warns against production reliance. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or mention rate limits. The pricing note adds some context but is vague.

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 relatively concise with three main sentences: a warning, a purpose statement, and a use-case hint. It front-loads the critical beta warning. Some examples (campaign names) are slightly extraneous but not overly verbose. Could be tightened.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clearly describe what the tool returns. It mentions listing active campaigns but does not specify the format or whether it returns IOCs per campaign, campaign metadata, or just names. The lack of output detail leaves an agent guessing about what will be returned.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately uses no param descriptions. The output is not clarified, but that is not parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists active supply chain attack campaigns for npm, PyPI, and Composer. It uses the verb 'list' and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., x402node_supply_campaign for specific campaigns, x402node_supply_ioc-scan for scanning). The examples of campaigns provide concrete context.

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 specifies a clear use case ('For coding agents pre-install audit') and warns about beta status and not relying on matches in production. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide conditions when not to use this tool, missing full guidance.

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