nibgate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a search operation returning content metadata and even names the unlock path field, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, defaults, authentication needs, or any side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 written sentences with the core action front-loaded. The metadata field list efficiently conveys return value scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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 partially compensates by listing key returned fields, but it omits the result envelope and pagination details. Since all parameters are optional, the word 'Search' might misleadingly imply q is required. Adequate for a basic discovery tool, but not fully complete.

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 of 3 applies. The description's metadata list (e.g., type, price) loosely relates to filters, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('verified creator content on Nibgate'), and returning content metadata fields. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_leaderboards and get_platform_stats, which focus on aggregate metrics rather than content discovery.

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 a clear use case: 'Use to discover what paid/free content exists.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the search/discovery purpose is clearly distinct from the statistical and ledger-oriented 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey that results are ranked by certain metrics, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose output format, default ordering direction, pagination behavior, or whether results are scoped/filtered in any way.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and ranking dimensions with zero filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning and it is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters and no required fields, the description plus schema covers the essential invocation details. The main gap is the absence of any return-format or pagination-response information, but with no output schema and a straightforward leaderboard result, 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: all three parameters (skip, type, limit) already have descriptions covering pagination, defaults, and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ranked creators, sites, or content'), along with the ranking criteria ('reputation score, unlocks, views, and revenue'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like explore_content or get_platform_stats without requiring schema inspection.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions, even though sibling tools like explore_content and get_platform_stats exist and could overlap with content ranking or stats 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the data is public, scoped to verified sites, and may include wallet addresses, tx hashes, and receipts 'where available.' However, it does not mention pagination behavior, sort order, or any access constraints, leaving behavioral transparency adequate but incomplete.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the resource and purpose, then adds useful return-content details without restating schema information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only query with no required parameters and no output schema, the description reasonably explains the response contents and public scope. It could benefit from explicit notes on filter usage or sibling routing, but the schema already covers the parameters, so the description is largely sufficient.

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 loosely echoes the 'type' enum values and the result fields, but it adds no new meaning for skip, limit, or domain beyond what the schema already explains.

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 ('Get the public Nibgate activity ledger') and enumerates the included activity types ('views, unlocks, payments, onchain ratings'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling stats/leaderboard tools. It stops short of fully differentiating by explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 the tool to call when the public activity ledger is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direction toward sibling tools. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and the sibling list rather than being told.

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 full disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation via 'Get' and enumerates the exact output content, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential access requirements, data time range/freshness, or any performance caveats, which an agent might want for a global stats endpoint.

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, front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and resource ('Get platform-wide Nibgate totals') before listing the return fields. Every word contributes information; there is no repetition, filler, or buried detail.

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, no-output-schema, simple read tool, the description is essentially complete: it states the scope and the exact fields returned, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor missing context like currency units, exact time period, or authentication expectations could improve clarity but do not prevent correct use.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description adds value by listing what the no-input call returns, effectively clarifying the meaning of the tool's output even without a formal output 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('platform-wide Nibgate totals') followed by an explicit list of metrics: creators, verified sites, content count, views, unlocks, revenue, and cumulative protocol fees. This is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_leaderboards and get_ledger, which clearly target rankings and ledger transactions rather than aggregate platform totals.

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—when aggregate platform-wide totals are needed—but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. The 'platform-wide' qualifier gives a useful hint, but the agent must infer the boundary against sibling tools rather than being told.

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 full burden. It clearly discloses what the tool does and what it returns, listing the manifest fields and URLs. Although it does not explicitly call out read-only behavior, 'resolve' plus 'use before payment' strongly implies a non-mutating lookup.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource being resolved, then lists output fields, and ends with a clear usage instruction.

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 no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the returned manifest fields and provide usage timing. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explicitly state that at least one of url or slug is required, especially since the schema marks zero parameters as required.

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 useful context about accepted input forms (full URL or bare slug) but does not clarify the relationship or precedence between the two optional parameters, such as whether one must be provided.

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 ('Resolve') with a clear resource (Nibshare link) and enumerates the returned manifest fields. This makes the tool's function obvious and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which target content exploration, leaderboards, ledger, and platform stats.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use before attempting payment or access.' It gives clear context but does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, 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.