Delvorn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially: it discloses the output fields and the read-only nature is implied by 'Browse'. It does not explicitly state that no purchase is made, nor does it mention pagination, authentication, or rate-limit behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence states the verb/resource first, then the return fields, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple, all-optional-parameter browse tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description's return-field list is sufficient to interpret results. A small gap remains: no explicit statement that this is a non-purchasing, read-only discovery action, and no response-shape detail (e.g., list of objects) beyond the field names.

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 baseline is 3; the description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'category' only as a returned field, not as a filter, so no extra semantic burden is placed on the description.

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 ('Browse available capabilities on the Delvorn marketplace') and lists the exact returned fields, making it easy to distinguish from purchase/quote tools and from get_asset-style lookups. The mention that the returned asset ID is needed for purchasing reinforces its catalog-browsing role.

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 discovery-before-purchase use case ('asset ID needed for purchasing'), but it does not explicitly say when to choose browse_assets over siblings such as list_asset or get_asset, nor does it state 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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses auth requirements, immediate synchronous return behavior on success, and idempotent retry safety. It does not mention failure modes or financial side effects, but covers the most important operational behavior.

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 concise sentences, each carrying useful information: the action, the prerequisite, the success result, and retry behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 purchase tool with no output schema, the description provides the return expectation and retry semantics. It could be more explicit about failure behavior or the exact response shape, but the schema fully covers parameters and defaults, making the tool callable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions the API key source and idempotency safety, but these are already captured in the parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Purchase a capability from the marketplace') with a clear resource and verb. It is distinct from read-only siblings like browse_assets, get_asset, and list_asset, and from registration/relay 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 gives clear context: use it to purchase a capability, requires an API key obtained from register_agent, and supports safe retries via idempotencyKey. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purchase intent and prerequisite are clear.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses authentication, idempotency, and that the server unilaterally fixes the amount and destinations. It does not fully describe the lifecycle or response, but the disclosed traits are genuinely informative.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and enriched by one necessary behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 is adequate for a straightforward quote-creation tool, covering operation, auth, and idempotency. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the returned quote contains and how this step fits into the sibling payment/retry/status flow.

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 67%, with apiKey and idempotencyKey already described. The description adds only that the quote is for 'one asset', but does not clarify what values assetId should take or how to obtain it. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the undocumented assetId parameter.

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 action ('Create an authenticated, idempotent x402 Base-USDC relay quote'), identifies the resource ('one asset'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('The server fixes the amount and all destinations'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like buy_asset and fund_x402_relay_payment.

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: call this to obtain a quote for a single asset. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings, e.g., that this should precede funding or payment, or that it does not execute the purchase.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the cost, the exact HTTP 402 failure mode, the retry requirement, the success response fields, and the absence of API-key or registration requirements. This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a payment-related tool.

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 information-dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's identity and cost; the second compresses the full request/response protocol. Every clause adds value and the structure is easy to scan despite the technical content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, network, asset, challenge URL, failure mode, retry condition, and success response fields. The main gap is that it does not specify exactly how PAYMENT-SIGNATURE must be supplied or how this canary relates to the sibling x402 relay tools.

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 is empty and has zero parameters, so the zero-parameter baseline applies. The description adds relevant context about the lack of authentication setup, but there are no actual parameter semantics to elaborate.

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 public $0.05 x402 canary and explains its two behaviors: unpaid calls return HTTP 402 and paid calls return 200 with specific response fields. It is specific and not tautological, though it never states an explicit directive like 'use this to test the x402 flow' and does not name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 operational guidance: call unpaid to receive the challenge, retry with PAYMENT-SIGNATURE, and expect a paid 200 response. It also sets clear context with 'No API key. No register.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling x402 or asset tools, so when-not-to-use is left implicit.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the non-obvious multi-call protocol and that the first call is expected to return a 402 challenge rather than complete a payment. It stops short of explaining side effects, idempotency, or authentication-related behavior.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler: the first states the operation, the second gives the exact call sequence. It is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the full workflow. It covers only the challenge/sign/submit loop and omits what the second call returns, where relayPaymentId comes from, and how to handle failure or status via get_x402_relay_status or retry_x402_relay_payment.

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%, and the description compensates only for paymentSignature by mentioning the encoded signature. relayPaymentId and apiKey remain unexplained, and the source of relayPaymentId from a previous quote is left to inference.

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 action ('Submit an x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE for a relay quote') and reveals the two-phase challenge flow. It is clearly distinct from create_x402_relay_quote and get_x402_relay_status, though it does not explicitly differentiate from retry_x402_relay_payment.

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 explicit sequencing: call first without paymentSignature to receive the 402 challenge, sign it, then call again with the signature. This is clear usage context, but it never names sibling alternatives such as retry_x402_relay_payment or get_x402_relay_status for failure and status cases.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation and the return list gives useful context, but it does not disclose behavior when neither parameter is provided, when both are provided, or when no matching agent is found. For such a simple read tool this is adequate but not complete.

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-loads the verb and resource, then lists the return fields. Every word earns its place, and the core semantics are immediately available.

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 is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the main purpose and return fields. However, the mismatch between the schema (required: []) and the description ('by name or ID') leaves ambiguity about whether at least one parameter is needed, and there is no mention of failure behavior. This is a noticeable gap for correct invocation.

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 documents each parameter. The description adds the relationship ('by name or ID') that they are alternatives, which is helpful, but it doesn't specify what happens if both are supplied or if none are supplied. This is baseline value for full schema coverage.

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 ('look up'), a specific resource ('an agent'), and the lookup keys ('by name or ID'). It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like get_asset or register_agent.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent's details are needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but among the siblings none competes for the same agent-lookup purpose, so the context is unambiguous. It lacks an explicit 'use this for...' statement but is otherwise clear.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get full details' signals a read-only lookup and says the return includes full information, but it does not describe error behavior, authentication needs, or what happens for invalid or nonexistent IDs.

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 short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and selection criterion efficiently.

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, the description is adequate for basic invocation, but with no output schema it leaves the return structure vague. It also lacks any guidance about failure cases, which limits completeness for an agent deciding whether the response will meet its needs.

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 schema coverage is 100% with a clear description and example for assetId. The description adds only 'by its ID,' which restates the schema rather than providing additional semantic meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a specific marketplace asset by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_assets and list_asset, which imply broader listing or discovery behavior.

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 implies the tool should be used when you already have an asset ID and need complete information, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_asset or browse_assets, nor does it mention any 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and reveals important traits: it is a paid public endpoint, requires no registration or API key, and produces a verifiable receipt after payment. It does not disclose failure modes or whether repeated calls incur repeated charges, but the payment and no-auth behavior are clearly stated.

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 fairly compact, but it repeats 'Returns' and front-loads the canary/receipt detail before the actual platform-info purpose. It could be tightened by combining the receipt and platform-info statements into one clear sentence.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description needs to explain return values, and it does list fee structure, payment methods, tier pricing, and quick-start instructions. However, it introduces the test-asset canary and verifiable receipt without explaining how they relate to the platform information, leaving some ambiguity about what the response actually contains.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 ultimately states a concrete outcome: returns Delvorn platform information, fee structure, supported payment methods, tier pricing, and quick-start instructions. However, the opening focuses on the x402 test-asset canary and payment receipt, which could make an agent confuse this with a paid canary/purchase tool rather than a platform-info tool.

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 this is a low-friction public endpoint because it says 'public $0.05 x402 canary, no register, no API key.' It does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like get_asset, get_stats, or delvorn_canary, nor does it mention any 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns live statistics and lists the returned data categories. However, it does not clarify what 'live' means (e.g., real-time vs. cached), whether authentication is required, or what happens on errors or empty data.

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 sentence with the main action front-loaded and a compact enumeration of the four returned metrics. Every part is informative and there is no redundant wording.

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 simple, no-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a reasonable list of return values. It is slightly incomplete because it does not specify units for 'volume traded,' the time range or period represented by 'total transactions,' or what 'live' guarantees about freshness.

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 input schema is complete (100% coverage). Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter semantics; it appropriately focuses on return values instead.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('live platform statistics') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_platform_info, which could plausibly overlap in scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_platform_info or get_agent. It implies one would use it to retrieve aggregate platform statistics, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially delivers by stating that completed responses include the delivered payload and receipt, and that the poll ends at terminal states. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, potential side effects (if any), retry behavior, or what responses look like for non-completed states.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action (poll) and resource (owned x402 relay payment), then adds the key outcome details. Every word contributes meaning.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented required parameters, the description is too sparse. It explains the completed response but not the retryable or failed response shapes, and it omits any guidance on how the apiKey or relayPaymentId relate to the ownership claim. An agent would likely need additional context to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the two required parameters, relayPaymentId and apiKey. It does not state that apiKey is an authentication credential or how relayPaymentId should be formatted or obtained. The phrase 'owned' implies ownership of the relay payment but does not clarify the 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 uses a specific verb, 'poll', and a specific resource, 'owned x402 relay payment', with explicit terminal states ('completed, retryable, or failed'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_x402_relay_quote, fund_x402_relay_payment, and retry_x402_relay_payment, which perform different 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 implies when to use the tool — after creating/funding a relay payment, to check its status — but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives. For example, it mentions 'retryable' as a state but does not direct the agent to retry_x402_relay_payment for that case, and it does not state when not to use this tool.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by noting that an API key is required and that the tool returns the created asset ID. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond implied creation, whether the listing is public immediately, or any mutation/persistence details.

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 short sentences and front-loads the core purpose first. It is concise and easy to scan, though the API key requirement is redundant with the schema and could be left out without losing essential meaning.

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 is sufficient for a moderately complex 7-parameter tool with high schema coverage, and it usefully mentions the returned asset ID since no output schema exists. However, it lacks usage context, alternative routing, and any note about required registration or marketplace-specific behavior, so an agent has to infer the full picture.

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 86%, so the input schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond stating the API key requirement and the return value, which is already reflected in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List a new capability for sale on the marketplace') and identifies the resource being created, so an agent can tell this is a create-listing operation rather than a read/list operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like browse_assets, buy_asset, and get_asset, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify that 'list' means 'create a listing' rather than 'retrieve listings'.

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 a clear context: selling a new capability on the marketplace. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention conditions like needing to register first or when a buyer-oriented sibling should be used instead.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly warns that the API key is shown only once and must be stored immediately, which is a critical behavioral trait beyond the basic registration action. It could add details about account creation side effects, but the one-time key warning is the most important behavior for the agent to know.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose, the second conveys the critical one-time-key behavior. The information is front-loaded and 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?

For a registration tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description explains the essential outcome (API key, one-time nature, and its role in subsequent operations). It adequately covers the operational context needed to invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally describe what happens if the agent name is already taken.

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 documents all four parameters, including the nested cryptoAddresses object. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 ('Register'), a clear resource ('a new agent on Delvorn'), and explains the key outcome (one-time API key). It is distinct from the sibling tools like get_agent or browse_assets, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool accomplishes.

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 establishes when to use this tool by explaining that the API key is required for listing and buying assets, implying this is a prerequisite step. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context signals it should be used before asset-related operations, which is sufficient 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the retry will not create another authorization or change destinations, which is non-obvious. However, it does not explain other side effects, whether the resume is synchronous, what response is returned, or what happens if the payment is no longer retryable.

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 sentence with no wasted words; the action and resource are front-loaded and the key constraint is appended without 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?

Without annotations, an output schema, or parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description leaves meaningful gaps: where relayPaymentId comes from, eligibility for retry, expected result or errors, and the relationship to get_x402_relay_status or fund_x402_relay_payment. It is enough to identify the tool but not to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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% and the description does not explain either parameter. An agent can only infer that relayPaymentId identifies the payment and apiKey authenticates the caller; the description should compensate for the bare schema but does not.

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 action ('Resume') and resource ('retryable or interrupted owned x402 relay payment'), and it distinguishes the tool from creation/funding siblings by noting it does not create another authorization or change destinations. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a clear model of what this tool is for.

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 'retryable or interrupted owned' gives a clear precondition for when the tool should be invoked, and 'without creating another authorization' signals when this is the lighter-weight alternative to creating a new payment. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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