Full free trust profile for one x402 merchant: identity/origin, demand, reputation, safety flags, and what could not be verified. The deep legitimacy report (control/autonomy, incident-weighing) is the one paid item, at REST /x402/report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | x402 resource URL or 0x payTo address |
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 that the profile is free, includes 'safety flags' and 'what could not be verified,' and surfaces the only paid item. This gives an agent a good sense of scope and limitations, even if it doesn't mention rate limits or data freshness.
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 deliver high-value information with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the core deliverable, then expands with content categories and a clear paid-vs-free distinction.
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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains output content, covered dimensions, inherent limitations, and the separate paid alternative. It gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool appropriately and interpret its result.
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 single 'target' parameter is already well-described as an x402 resource URL or 0x payTo address. The description adds no new parameter details, but since the schema fully covers this simple parameter, a 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 clearly identifies the tool as producing a 'Full free trust profile for one x402 merchant' and enumerates specific content areas: identity/origin, demand, reputation, safety flags, and verification gaps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_verdict by focusing on a per-merchant trust profile.
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 conveys that this is the free profile option for a single x402 merchant and contrasts it with the paid deep legitimacy report at REST /x402/report. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like x402_verdict or x402_leaderboard.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools share the same core purpose (safety checks) differentiated mainly by chain or asset type, and descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish them most of the time. However, pairs like rug_check/rugcheck and deployer_check/deployer_reputation have overlapping purposes that could lead to misselection.
Most tool names follow a lowercase snake_case pattern with clear descriptors, but there are notable exceptions like 'rugcheck', 'defillama', and 'verify'. Additionally, the 'rug_check' vs 'rugcheck' pair is an obvious naming inconsistency.
44 tools is excessive for any server. Even for a broad security/due-diligence purpose, many tools (especially the robinhood_* series) are highly specialized and could be consolidated into fewer actions.
The tool surface is impressively comprehensive, covering token/NFT safety, transaction simulation, whale/address tracking, stock analysis, prediction markets, and project validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no ENS resolution or stock price history), but they are not critical for the server's core purpose.
