verantis-mcp

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) by detailing what the tool returns: reputation tier, human-readable reasons, settlement rail, host, buyer retention stats, and shared_wallet behavior. It also explains the semantics of 'shared_wallet' and advises caution. This fully discloses the tool's behavior and output, exceeding the basic annotation hints.

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 main purpose, then provides detailed return information. It is slightly longer than minimal but each sentence adds meaningful context (e.g., shared_wallet explanation, buyer retention). It is well-structured and avoids redundancy, though a slight trim could improve conciseness.

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 lack of output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values: reputation tier, reasons, settlement rail, host, buyer retention, and shared_wallet semantics. It also provides guidance on interpretation. It could be more explicit about the exact response structure (e.g., JSON format), but the semantic coverage is strong for a tool with this complexity.

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 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'pay_to' parameter format. The tool description adds value by explaining the parameter's role in context: 'Pass the pay-to address a service asked you to pay.' This workflow context enhances the schema's technical description, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the purpose: 'Check a recipient wallet BEFORE your agent pays it — a pre-payment guard.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('recipient wallet'), and distinguishes from sibling tools (directory_stats, find_paid_service, get_service) by being the only one focused on wallet reputation. The return details (reputation tier, reasons, rail info) further clarify its 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 explicitly says to use this tool before paying a recipient, positioning it as a 'pre-payment guard.' It provides context ('Pass the pay-to address a service asked you to pay') and suggests action ('An unknown or low-reputation recipient is a reason to pause'). It does not list explicit alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct in purpose, so the usage context is 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (output may be partial). The description adds that the statistics are 'index-level' and lists covered categories (services, verification breakdown, data freshness). This provides behavioral context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key categories. Every word adds value; no fluff. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 carries full burden of explaining return values. It lists three categories, which is sufficient for an AI to understand what the tool returns. However, it omits details like whether results are aggregated or per-index, and whether there are any filters. Still, given the tool's simplicity and zero parameters, the description is largely 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?

The tool has no parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%. The rule states baseline 4 for 0 parameters. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't, which 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 clearly states that the tool provides 'Index-level statistics' and specifies the content categories: services, verification breakdown, and data freshness. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_wallet', 'find_paid_service', and 'get_service' which target specific resources. The verb is implied but the resource and output granularity are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the title and description suggest a general overview tool, there is no explicit 'use this for aggregate stats, use find_paid_service for searching' differentiation. The agent must infer usage context from the empty parameter list and sibling names.

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 the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important result-shaping behaviors: unified per host, rails each with their own reputation/price/retention, wallet_scope semantics (dedicated vs shared), and coming_soon indicating unmeasured chains. This is substantial behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from annotations or the schema.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, result structure, rail semantics, wallet_scope interpretation, and a usage warning. The description is dense with meaning but not bloated, and the most critical scoping information appears early.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a strong job of explaining key result fields: rails, wallet_scope, coming_soon, and matched_rail. However, the phrasing 'Pass chain and matched_rail marks that chain's rail' is slightly ambiguous about whether matched_rail is an input or output field, which 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how chain interacts with the output (matched_rail) and what wallet_scope means for interpreting payments/volume, which goes beyond the schema. It does not deeply explain every parameter, but the schema already handles those.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Search Verantis's verified directory of machine-payable services (x402, MPP)'. It further clarifies the result model (unified per service, per-rail data) and naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like check_wallet and directory_stats by focusing on the search/query 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?

The description gives clear operational guidance: pass 'chain' to see rail-specific reputation, and 'Prefer verified=true before paying anyone' to signal high-stakes selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_service, so it stops short of full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use 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=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the wallet_scope distinction between 'shared' pooled-inbound wallets and 'dedicated' wallets. No behavior contradicts the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The three sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose and then add necessary semantic detail about wallet_scope. No sentence is wasted, and the length is appropriate for the conceptual nuance being conveyed.

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 fully characterizes what the returned 'full unified record' contains, including per-rail fields and the subtle wallet_scope behavior. With one well-documented parameter and read-only annotations, nothing essential is missing 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents 'domain' as the service host/domain to look up with an example. The description only repeats 'Pass the host (domain)', adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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?

The description states a specific resource ('full unified record for one service host') and enumerates its contents: settlement rails, reputation, price, buyers, volume, history, and coming-soon chains. This clearly distinguishes it from directory-level or wallet-level sibling tools, even without naming them.

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 clear context for use: when you need a complete record for one service host, and it explicitly instructs the caller to pass the host domain. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the singular-host scope is enough to guide selection.

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