Citable — endpoints and prices

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the tool is free, reports wallet funding status, and can return empty results that require a setup fallback. This is useful and consistent with the annotations.

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 dense sentences deliver essential information with no filler: what the tool returns, the fallback when empty, and the call-first instruction. Key behavioral guidance is front-loaded.

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?

With no input schema parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return fields, pricing context, wallet funding, and next-step behavior. It covers all of these clearly, including the empty-case handling and the directive to call this first.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this, so parameter-level description is unnecessary. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input semantics, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 Citable's SEO endpoints with current per-call USDC prices and the wallet that pays. This is specific and distinguishes the tool from sibling data-gathering tools because it is a meta-resource for endpoint access and pricing.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool first, establishing clear sequencing relative to the many sibling Citable tools. It also specifies what to do when the result is empty: surface the two funding methods provided by `setup` to the user.

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