Validate x402.json content against expected schema. Returns errors, warnings, and suggestions. No network requests — pure validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The x402.json content to validate |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are largely distinct: scan_url and scan_compact both scan but differ in output detail and purpose, which could cause slight confusion. get_history and validate_x402_json are clearly separate. Overall, descriptions resolve most ambiguity.
All tool names use snake_case and follow a predictable verb_noun pattern: get_history, scan_url, validate_x402_json. scan_compact slightly deviates as verb_adjective but still fits the pattern well.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose—scanning URLs, validating x402 JSON, and retrieving history. Each tool serves a clear need without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the full workflow: scanning (full and compact), validation, and historical access. There are no obvious dead ends—agents can scan, validate, and review past scans without missing functionality.
