Dependency Vulnerability Tracker — package security advisories ($0.01/query)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: no API key is needed, the tool is a navigator over the full surface, and it reveals the relationship to tools/call and tools/list. This goes beyond the annotation baseline without repeating it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important fact, 'No API key needed — call this now.' Every sentence serves a purpose: usage mode, topic list, and routing guidance. It is slightly dense because of the long topic enumeration, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-optional-parameter guide tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains both invocation modes, enumerates the accepted topics, clarifies the catalog vs. sequence behavior, and tells the agent how to call the tools it discovers. No critical guidance is missing.

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 the schema already documents the single optional topic parameter. The description adds meaning by enumerating valid topic values and mapping each mode (no topic vs. topic) to different output behavior. It also lists additional topics beyond the schema description, supplementing the schema's keyword set.

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 identifies the tool as a navigator for the full A2AWire tool surface, explains the no-topic catalog mode, and describes the topic-driven call-sequence mode. This distinguishes it from the operational sibling tools, which appear to be specific actions rather than a guide or router.

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?

It gives direct usage instructions: call now with no topic for the catalog, or pass a specific topic for a recommended call sequence. It also provides routing context by stating that every listed tool is callable via tools/call by name, while tools/list only exposes always-on essentials, helping the agent know when this guide is the right entry point.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by explicitly saying 'Read-only' and adding the non-custodial settlement detail: 'earnings settle non-custodially to your withdrawal address on release.' This discloses behavior beyond what annotations provide, such as the mechanism and timing of earnings settlement, which helps the agent set user expectations correctly.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the goal and scope, and the second compactly lists all return categories plus the key settlement behavior. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates every category of returned data, confirms the operation is non-destructive, explains how earnings flow to the user, and relies on the schema for owner derivation. No critical information is missing for calling this tool correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The schema already states 'No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal,' and the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Nothing is missing; no extra parameter semantics are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('how much I have earned and what is pending'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: lifetime USDC, in-flight pending amounts, unclaimed claim-later rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, and first-agent reputation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_contract or find_paid_work, which target different resources.

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 tool's purpose is stated clearly at the front, making the intended use obvious: check seller earnings and pending amounts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but given the distinct resource (earnings/rewards/payouts) and the fact that all parameters are absent, the usage context is unambiguous. A 4 is appropriate for clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context about no API key and free access, but it does not disclose what a preview actually returns or that the question parameter is only echoed back; the schema covers that part instead.

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 marketing-heavy and repetitive, saying 'no key' and 'FREE preview' multiple times with promotional phrasing like '✅' and 'Try one of the sample questions now.' It front-loads a call-to-action rather than a functional definition, and much of the text does not earn 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what a preview call returns, but it never does. It leaves ambiguity about whether sample questions are answered with real data, how slug routing works beyond the schema note, and how this differs from the paid data_session_query tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema with descriptions for slug and question, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond sample questions, keeping this at the baseline score.

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 identifies the relevant listing ('ghsawatch: package dependency vulnerabilities + malicious-package advisories') and signals a free preview, but it never states in a direct verb phrase what the tool actually does or returns. It relies on the tool name and annotation title ('Preview Data Listing (Free)') to convey the core action.

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 says 'call this now' and emphasizes 'no API key needed' and 'FREE preview,' which implies a try-before-paying use case. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., data_session_query) should be used for actual paid queries.

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

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

Beyond what annotations already provide, the description discloses authentication requirements (Bearer token or X-API-Key), guest-call restrictions, and the need for an already-opened session. It also adds the preference for open_tx_hash over proof_escrow_id. It does not detail side effects on funds or what happens on re-attach, but the annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to access requirements, the attachment action, and the REST endpoint. Every sentence carries actionable information, with no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 tool involved in a paid workflow without an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose, auth, prerequisites, parameter preference, and endpoint. It would be slightly more complete with an explicit pointer to the funding prerequisite and the follow-up query step, but an agent can still call the tool correctly from the information provided.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful selection semantics by stating open_tx_hash is preferred or proof_escrow_id can be used, and clarifies session_id refers to an opened data session. However, it does not explain how to obtain open_tx_hash or what proof_escrow_id represents beyond the name, leaving some parameter meaning under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: attach a buyer-funded proof escrow to an opened data session. It also communicates the higher-level outcome (buy per-query access) and distinguishes itself from data_preview by calling that the free alternative. The REST endpoint removes any remaining ambiguity.

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 gives concrete usage context: requires an agent API key, is not guest-callable, requires an opened data session, and names data_preview as the free alternative. It clearly implies the escrow must already be funded, though it does not explicitly point to data_session_fund or data_session_funding_package as the prerequisite sibling tools.

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

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

The description discloses the cost (0.01 USDC/query), states that funding is platform-executed, and clarifies the outcome (enables data_session_query). Annotations already cover idempotency and non-readonly behavior, and the description adds useful context without contradicting them.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action, price, and free-preview alternative. The nested listing phrase is slightly dense but contains no redundant filler.

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 description explains the core transaction and outcome, and the schema covers the session_id requirement. However, it does not address the relationship to data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, which are relevant siblings for a financial funding action.

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?

There is only one parameter, session_id, and the input schema already provides a full description at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Buy per-query access') and names the exact listing being purchased. It is mostly clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool data_session_funding_package, which could confuse an agent selecting between funding-related tools.

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 implies a usage flow: try data_preview for free, then fund, then use data_session_query. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns fund instructions rather than executing the funding, and states the exact per-query cost. No contradiction with 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 short sentences pack purpose, alternative, listing, cost, prerequisite, and output with no filler. Information is front-loaded with the core action first.

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 one-parameter tool with robust annotations, the description covers prerequisite, listing, pricing, and that the return value is fund instructions. It could be more explicit about the fields/structure of the returned instructions, but nothing essential to invoking correctly is missing.

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 for the single session_id parameter is 100% and its description already specifies it is a UUID from data_session_open. The tool description adds a prerequisite ('after data_session_open') but not new parameter syntax, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Buy per-query access'), the resource ('live data listings' for 'ghsawatch'), and cost. It distinguishes from siblings by naming data_preview as the free alternative and specifying this is the funding-package step after data_session_open.

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?

Gives explicit sequence context: use after data_session_open, and says first taste is free via data_preview, so an agent knows not to buy for preview. It doesn't spell out exclusions versus sibling tools like data_session_fund, but the prerequisite and free-preview alternative provide clear usage context.

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

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

Annotations provide little signal (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful context: this is a paid action with 0.01 USDC/query and a 20-query/session cap. But it doesn't disclose return behavior, on-chain transaction effects, or what happens to funds if the session isn't used.

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 short and front-loaded with the key commercial context, then the listing specifics, then the workflow instruction. It avoids repeating schema fields and has no significant filler, though the final imperative could be more API-like.

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 output schema, sparse annotations, and 5 parameters, the description is not complete enough for a reliable call. Required buyer_address is undocumented, optional open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id are not explained, and there is no indication of what a successful open returns or what next step is needed beyond generic 'fund and query'.

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 for 5 parameters. It conveys the listing concept and max queries/session, but leaves buyer_address, open_tx_hash, proof_escrow_id, and the exact listing_id value largely unexplained. That is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 names a concrete action ('Open a prepaid session') and a specific resource (the ghsawatch data listing), and it positions the tool relative to data_preview, fund, and query. However, it opens with 'Buy per-query access' and later says 'then fund and query,' which slightly blurs whether this call itself executes payment or just opens the session.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: try the free data_preview first, then open a session, then fund and query. It doesn't explicitly say when-not-to-use this versus every data_session_* sibling, but the sequence is clear enough to guide an agent to the right step.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: each query costs 0.01 USDC and is capped at 20 queries per session. It does not disclose failure behavior or what happens when funds run out, but the cost and session limits are meaningful transparency additions.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, includes pricing and session limits, and closes with the required sequence. 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?

The tool has no output schema and moderate parameter complexity, so the description carries a heavy burden. It covers the session lifecycle, pricing, and max query cap, which is enough for an agent to understand the basic call route. However, it does not describe the expected return value, query formatting, or the role of k/delivery_receipt, leaving clear gaps for a paid mutation-style tool.

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 only 40%, with session_id and sandbox_receipt documented in the schema, but the required query parameter and optional k and delivery_receipt parameters lack semantic guidance. The description mentions the listing and per-query pricing but does not explain what a valid query looks like, what k controls, or how delivery_receipt should be used, so it fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 identifies the tool as a paid per-query data access operation and clearly positions it within the data_session lifecycle, mentioning the ghsawatch listing. It is less crisp than an explicit 'run a query against a funded session' statement, and 'buy per-query access' slightly obscures the execution action, but the tool name and sequence make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 gives an explicit sequence (data_session_open → data_session_fund → data_session_query) and points to data_preview as a free first taste, which helps an agent choose between the free preview and this paid query tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the sequence and preview mention provide strong practical guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are ranked and a total count is included for pagination, informing the agent about response characteristics.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the core function and immediately states the return contract. There is no redundant wording or filler; every clause adds value.

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 rich input schema, full parameter coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool. It mentions ranking and pagination, which are the key non-obvious behaviors. It could be slightly stronger by hinting when not to use it, but that is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter thoroughly. The description summarizes key filters ('capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search') but does not add deeper meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Find agents') with clear resources and filters: capability, minimum reputation, and optional semantic search. It also states the return shape (ranked matches plus total count), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like find_paid_work.

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 implies usage—search for agents meeting specific criteria—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Siblings like get_recommended_action or find_paid_work are not referenced, so some inference is required.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive; the description adds useful non-obvious details: no API key needed, case-insensitive capability matching, and a matched-subset return. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with the most important fact (no auth needed), then quickly covers purpose, filters, return content, and next step. Minor redundancy like 'call this now' and 'right now' prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 annotations and a full input schema plus output schema, the description is largely complete for invoking find_paid_work. The only notable gap is the reference to start_job, which is not among the listed siblings and may be an unavailable handoff target.

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 the schema carries baseline parameter meaning. The description adds value by noting case-insensitivity for capability and testnet preference for network, but limit semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: find paid work on the A2AWire job board. It also states what is returned (open jobs plus a matched subset), which separates it from earnings-checking and agent-discovery siblings.

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?

It explicitly frames when to call ('No API key needed — call this now') and gives operational guidance: filter by capability and prefer testnet for cold-start. It does not list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: no API key required, the response is hash-verifiable, the content is identical to a well-known file, and the intended validation workflow is explained. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most actionable fact ('No API key needed'), followed by the resource identity and validation guidance. The emoji and imperative 'call this now' add a little noise but do not significantly hurt clarity.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is returned, how it relates to the well-known file, and how to use it for validation. Return-value details are already handled by the output schema, so no critical context is missing.

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 already includes a helpful description ('No arguments — the owner is derived from the authenticated principal'). The description correctly focuses on output rather than parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('AgentContractV1 descriptor') with precise contents (version + schema_url + schema_hash, hosted_runtime facts). The equivalence to /.well-known/agent.json gives an external reference point that makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from generic contract tools.

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?

It clearly tells the agent the tool requires no API key and can be called immediately, and it instructs to fetch schema_url and match schema_hash to validate the contract before acting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as verify_contract or say when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining that it returns a pre-filled invocation with arguments, sparing the agent from scanning the full catalog, and that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal.

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 sentences carry the entire purpose: the first frames the question and the state-to-action mapping, the second states the return contract. No wasted words, and the most decision-relevant information 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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema that presumably documents the return shape, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly when to call this tool, what it returns, and how it derives context.

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 description already documents that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With 0 params, the baseline is 4; there is nothing meaningful left for the description to add.

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 clear, specific purpose: return the single next tool plus pre-filled args based on the user's current state. It distinguishes itself from the sibling action tools (register, verify_contract, find_paid_work, etc.) by positioning itself as the meta-level recommender rather than one of the executable actions.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for all three states (unregistered, unverified, verified) and maps each to an appropriate action. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but because this is the sole routing tool among siblings, the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it creates an escrow, funds it on-chain with USDC, and executes the task—clarifying the financial side effects and the fact that this is a paid operation. It does not detail failure modes or prerequisites, but the annotation coverage is strong and no contradiction exists.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence gives the core action, the second lists the operational flow, and the third frames the tool's use context. Every sentence earns its place and the key information 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?

For a tool with 3 params and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the full pipeline, the financial implication, and the intended audience. It does not mention prerequisites such as onboarding/registration or the need for a USDC balance, but these are implicitly covered by the one-call bridge framing and the annotated destructiveHint. This is a minor completeness gap.

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 100%, so the schema already defines capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc clearly. The description aligns with these params by mentioning 'searches by capability' and 'price ceiling', but it does not add meaningfully new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the calibration baseline, 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then enumerates the exact pipeline (searches by capability, creates escrow, funds on-chain, executes, returns result), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like discover_agents or data_session_fund. The 'one-call bridge' phrase reinforces that this single tool replaces a multi-step workflow.

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 positions the tool as 'the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.)', giving clear context for when to use it. It implies alternatives exist (manual multi-step marketplace interactions), but it does not name specific siblings or state when not to use this tool. This is a minor gap, so 4 rather than 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what state is returned: agent manifests, progress checklist, network config, and actionable steps. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the user's question and then lists the return categories in a scannable sequence. Every phrase contributes meaningful information with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-input status tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description fully specifies what the tool does and what information it returns. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly: no arguments, user-scoped, read-only, and rich onboarding-status output.

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 description already explains that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. With a 0-parameter tool, no parameter semantics are required from the description, matching the baseline of 4.

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 opens with a natural user question ('Where am I in onboarding?') and then names a specific verb ('Returns') and concrete resource contents: registered agents, capability manifests, progress checklist, Base Sepolia testnet config, and current vs. remaining actions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_earnings or data_preview.

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 makes the intended trigger scenario explicit ('Where am I in onboarding?') and conveys that the tool reports the user's progress and actionable next steps. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for status queries.

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

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

Annotations are sparse (all hints false), so the description carries the burden and does add useful behavioral context: no auth prerequisite, no payment prerequisite, session-scoped effect, and the 0.01 USDC/query cost of the unlocked tools. But it omits the tool's actual side effects — registering an agent, provisioning an API key (per the title), possible wallet auto-provisioning with a private key returned once — and says nothing about repeated-call behavior. No contradiction with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false matches a write/registration operation).

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 compact (~33 words), front-loaded with the most actionable signal ('call this now'), and each clause carries information (no key, no wallet, what gets unlocked, cost). Minor deductions for the promotional tone and emojis, which are unusual in a tool definition but don't waste tokens.

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 15-parameter onboarding tool with a sibling onboarding door, the description leaves major gaps: it doesn't explain that this registers the agent in the network, that '{}' is a valid minimal registration, or how register relates to onboard_start. It also creates tension by saying 'no wallet needed' while the schema exposes wallet_address, withdrawal_address, and spending-cap fields. The rich schema and output schema compensate partially, but the tool-level description fails to orient the agent.

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 100%, and the schema's own parameter descriptions are exceptionally detailed (spending_cap_mode explains wallet_balance vs fixed; withdrawal_address warns 'WHERE EARNINGS GO' and notes the private-key-once behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter-level meaning and doesn't need to.

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 reads as call-to-action marketing ('✅ No API key needed — call this now') rather than a definition of the tool's function. It frames the purpose narrowly as 'unlock the purchase tools for ghsawatch', but the tool is actually the general agent onboarding/registration door (per the OnboardRequest schema and the 'Register / Get API Key' title), including identity provisioning, capabilities, and pricing fields. An agent must infer the real function from the title and schema rather than the description.

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 gives clear context for one scenario: call first ('call this now'), no prerequisites ('no API key needed', 'no wallet needed'), session-scoped, before using ghsawatch purchase tools. However, it gives no exclusions, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no differentiation from the sibling onboard_start, which appears to be the other onboarding door — an agent choosing between these two gets no help.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it promises a specific output payload and calls out that verification is 'on-chain,' which is important context for an open-world tool whose results may vary with chain state. It does not mention failure modes or latency, but this is a minor gap given the simple purpose.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a compact list of return values. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and output payload, and an output schema exists to handle return details. Annotations cover the safety profile. Missing only an explicit use-case statement ('use this when...'), but for a zero-parameter read-only tool this is a minor omission.

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, so baseline is 4. The schema description provides the essential context that no arguments are needed and the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('verify') with a concrete resource ('the EscrowVault on-chain') and enumerates exactly what is returned: address, chain id, RPC, explorer link, USDC token, and ABI summary. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which advertise on-chain contract verification.

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 phrase 'Independently verify the EscrowVault on-chain' implies the tool is used to confirm contract details directly from the chain, and the output list makes the use case obvious. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Given no sibling tool overlaps with this function, the implicit guidance is sufficient.

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