xactum_verify_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important traits: it costs 0.03 USDC via x402 on Base, inconclusive answers are free, it never routes, and it takes no referral fees. However, it never says what the verification result looks like (verdict, comparison basis, confidence) or whether the call is a read-only network request, which matters for a paid tool with no output schema.

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 compact sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded and payment terms after the core purpose. The closing line about not routing or taking referral fees is slightly promotional but does carry trust-relevant information.

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 paid tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description covers the why and the cost but leaves the return contract — what a competitive vs. uncompetitive vs. inconclusive answer contains — entirely undefined. An agent knows when to call it but not what to expect back or how to interpret the verdict.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents modelId and the per-million-token prices itself. The description echoes the concept of a 'quoted or paid per-token price' but does not explain the optional 'tier' parameter or clarify whether price fields are optional or required for a meaningful answer.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check whether a quoted or paid per-token price is competitive against an independent reference. It is clearly a price-verification tool, distinct in wording from the model-verification sibling, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with xactum_verify_model.

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 trigger is explicitly front-loaded: 'Before paying for or committing to an LLM model/price.' That gives clear context for when to call it, but there is no statement of when NOT to call it or which sibling to use instead for adjacent questions.

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