Living Stack Agent Commerce

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable practical guarantee: 'This tool never charges.' This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent decide to invoke it safely.

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 short sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the safety-relevant 'never charges' note following. No redundant or filler 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, non-destructive tool with strong annotations, the description covers what is returned and a key behavioral guarantee. There is no output schema, but the description names the two main outputs, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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 with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 that the tool returns current Living Stack purchase boundaries and the shortest buyer handoff, which distinguishes it from the sibling purchase-preparation tools. However, the exact meaning of 'purchase boundaries' is domain-specific and could be clearer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: the tool is informational ('never charges') and returns boundaries/handoff details, so an agent would call it before preparing a purchase. It does not explicitly name siblings as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context provides reasonable 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 indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by explicitly stating that the tool never charges and returns an MPP-enabled HTTP request, which clarifies that the tool does not execute the purchase.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that each add value: the first states the core behavior, and the second adds the critical financial safety clarification. There is 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?

The return value is partially described as an exact MPP-enabled HTTP request, but the input 'request' is a black box with no schema descriptions, examples, or hints. With no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description is not sufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.

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 only parameter 'request' is an opaque object with additionalProperties. The description provides no field-level meaning, examples, or constraints, and merely reuses the word 'request' without explaining what the object should contain.

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 behavior: validates the request and returns an exact MPP-enabled HTTP request, while also clarifying that it never charges. The resource is implied by the title 'claim-audit purchase,' making the purpose clear even though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus livingstack.prepare_team_local_purchase or livingstack.agent_offers. The description implies it is for preparing a signed request rather than executing it, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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 convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: 'This tool never charges' and 'validates the exact ... request,' which clarify that no purchase is executed. This is meaningful additional transparency, though it does not cover authentication, rate limits, or failure 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 tight sentences that front-load the main purpose and add the critical 'never charges' caveat. Every sentence earns its place, 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?

The tool has a complex nested request object and no output schema. The description mentions the high-level return values (MPP purchase route and protected recovery token) and that it validates the request, which helps an agent understand the flow. It does not spell out field semantics, but the schema covers those details, so the description is reasonably complete for selection and 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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the required request fields (client_order_id, installation_public_key_jwk, expected_package_sha256, schema). The phrase 'exact Verified Mode release request' gives minimal context, but the description must compensate for the low schema coverage and 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 uses a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('Verified Mode release request'), and clearly states the tool returns an MPP purchase route and recovery token. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from its siblings, especially prepare_claim_audit_purchase, relying on the title/name for that distinction.

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 provides clear context: this is a validation/preparation step for a Verified Mode release request and explicitly says it never charges, implying it is a non-payment preparation step. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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