xactum_feedback

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real context — the call is free, requires structured (no free text) input, and a valid review credits the given wallet — but it never defines what makes a review 'valid', whether repeats per queryId are allowed, or what happens on rejection.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the cost model and then the mechanism. Nothing is redundant, though the leading 'Free:' is marketing-adjacent framing rather than operational detail.

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 4-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool this is thin: the reward is mentioned but the response shape, validity criteria, and idempotency are unaddressed. An agent knows how to start the call but not how to interpret or safely repeat it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it explains queryId (identifies the answer being rated) and wallet (credit recipient). 'useful' and 'outcome' are left to their self-describing enum values, with no explanation of how the two ratings relate or whether outcome is needed when useful=yes.

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: rate a XACTUM answer, keyed by its queryId, in structured form. It is easy to tell apart from the xactum_verify_* siblings, which verify models/prices rather than collect feedback, though the description never names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: you rate 'a XACTUM answer' with 'its queryId', so the context is post-answer feedback. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the verify tools, and no exclusion such as 'do not call if you already submitted feedback'.

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