AgentGrade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions a prerequisite (database configuration) and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that efficiently conveys the purpose and a key requirement. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the main action.

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 relatively simple (two optional parameters, no output schema), and the schema covers parameter semantics. However, the description lacks information about what the history contains, return format, or any behavioral context beyond the database prerequisite. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (url and limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the action ('Get scan history') and the resource ('for a URL'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_url and validate_x402_json. The purpose is 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 alternatives. The only extra information is 'Requires database to be configured,' which is a prerequisite, not usage context. It does not mention alternatives or 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only certain data is returned, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 wasted words. Key information is front-loaded ('Compact scan returning...'), making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's purpose and output scope.

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 should explain the return values, but it only names 'rails', 'capabilities', and a numeric score without defining them. This leaves an agent unable to interpret the scan results, making the description incomplete in context.

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% for the single 'url' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning (e.g., formatting constraints or URL types), keeping the score at the baseline.

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 it is a scan tool returning 'only rails, capabilities, and a numeric score', giving a specific verb and resource plus the output scope. It implies distinctiveness from siblings via 'Compact', but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of 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?

Provides clear context with 'Optimized for agent decision-making', indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name sibling alternatives, so it lacks 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it scans and returns results; it does not disclose that this involves network access to the URL, potential delays, privacy implications, or what happens on inaccessible/invalid URLs.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose, then provides a concise list of included result types. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter scanning tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and a useful list of what is included in the results. It lacks deeper details on output structure or error/edge-case behavior, but for the given complexity it is reasonably 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 coverage for the single parameter is 100% and the parameter description ('URL to scan (http or https)') already conveys the meaning. The tool description adds context about the scan scope (capabilities and payment protocols) but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond the 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 clearly states a specific action ('Scan') on a specific resource ('URL') and enumerates the return content (x402, MPP, L402, discovery, bazaar, MCP, plugins, OpenAPI). The phrase 'full results' also helps differentiate from the likely abbreviated sibling 'scan_compact'.

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 explicit or implicit guidance about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Sibling tools like get_history and scan_compact are not mentioned, and though 'full results' hints at a contrast, there is no clear when-to-use or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns errors/warnings/suggestions and performs no network requests. This adequately covers the operation's safety and output characteristics, though it omits details like how errors are formatted.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds valuable behavioral constraints (returns, no network). Every phrase earns its place with no 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 simple validation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, outcome, and constraints. No additional context appears necessary.

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 has 100% coverage with the parameter 'content' already described as 'The x402.json content to validate'. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond confirming the target, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool validates x402.json content against a schema, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_history, scan_compact, scan_url) by focusing on validation rather than history or scanning.

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 context (validating x402.json) and notes no network requests, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or what scenarios preclude its use. It provides no alternatives.

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