Money-Engine x402 Research

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the tool is 'free' but does not clarify if it's read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. However, the input schema has no parameters, implying a straightforward retrieval.

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 sentence that conveys the essential information without unnecessary words.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns. However, it could mention the format or that the document is read-only.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the document's contents beyond the empty 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 specifies the tool returns a 'discovery document' and lists its contents (resources, prices, etc.). The verb 'Free' is ambiguous but the overall purpose is clear and distinct from sibling tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like x402_health or x402_research_brief. The description only states what it does.

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 provided; description mentions 'free' and pricing ladder but does not disclose behavioral traits like potential side effects or authentication needs.

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 concise sentences, though slightly ambiguous on what 'liveness' entails.

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?

Adequate given no parameters or output schema, but leaves detail gaps about the response format of liveness and pricing.

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?

No parameters exist; baseline score of 4 as description need not add meaning 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 states 'Free liveness + pricing for the money-engine Research API' and mentions a ladder of tools, distinguishing it from siblings like x402_discovery and x402_research_brief.

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?

Implies use for checking liveness and pricing, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use.

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 disclose behaviors. It mentions the payment requirement and the consequence of missing paymentHeader (returns 402 with accepts array). However, it does not describe the success response format, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving 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?

The description is very short (35 words) and front-loads the key point. However, it uses cryptic formatting (e.g., '0.02 USDC Base · upgrade') and lacks clear sentences. While concise, it sacrifices readability for brevity.

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 does not explain the output of a successful call (e.g., format of the research brief). Given no output schema and no annotations, more context is needed on the response structure and the payment flow. The 402 error case is mentioned but the success case is omitted.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying that without paymentHeader the tool returns a 402 error, and that topic should be placed in the request body ('Body {topic}'). This gives practical usage context 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 states 'Paid full research brief' indicating the tool generates a comprehensive research brief for a fee. It distinguishes from sibling tools like x402_sample_outline by implying this is the paid full version. However, the meaning of 'research brief' is not explicitly defined.

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 mentions alternatives: 'Free first: x402_sample_outline' and 'optional outline 0.01 first' (likely x402_research_outline). This gives guidance on when to use which tool based on cost. However, it could be clearer about the exact conditions.

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?

The description discloses that the tool requires payment, that omitting paymentHeader results in a 402 error with an accepts array, and that the topic should be in the body. With no annotations, it carries the transparency burden but does not mention the output format or any other side effects.

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 concise, using a single sentence with key points separated by periods. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the structure is slightly cryptic (e.g., 'Body {topic}' could be misinterpreted).

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 tool's complexity (payment flow) and lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe what a successful response contains, any rate limits, or detailed payment process, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior.

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 schema already describes both parameters (topic and paymentHeader) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that topic should be placed in the request body and that paymentHeader is used for payment proof, clarifying usage 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 it is a paid research outline tool, mentions the cost (0.01 USDC), and distinguishes itself from the free alternative x402_sample_outline. However, it could be more explicit about the exact resource being created.

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 suggests using the free sibling tool first and explains the error response when paymentHeader is missing. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over other paid siblings like x402_research_brief, leaving the agent without complete 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 exist, so description carries behavioral burden. It specifies free, non-destructive nature and limited output (3 bullets). Missing details like rate limits or response format.

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?

Description is short and conveys key info despite some jumbled phrasing. Every sentence contributes, but structure could be clearer.

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, description explains output (3 bullets) and commercial context. For a simple teaser, it is relatively 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 covers topic parameter well (100% coverage). Description adds default value and URL hint, but these are also in schema. Minimal added value.

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 states it's a free research teaser providing 3 bullets, and distinguishes from paid siblings via a conversion ladder. Purpose is clear but could be more structured.

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?

Description implies usage as a free step before paid tools, giving a clear progression. No explicit when-not-to-use, but context is adequate.

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 provided; description labels it a 'demo' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it mutates data, requires permissions, or has side effects.

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?

Short two sentences, but first sentence is vague and the second sentence introduces an alternative path without clear structure. Could be more front-loaded with a clear purpose.

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 parameters and no output schema, description is incomplete for an agent; does not explain what 'dirty→clean demo' means, what the output is, or how to interpret results.

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?

Zero parameters so schema coverage is 100%; baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter meaning but does not need to; the schema already fully defines inputs.

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 says 'data-scrub / leak-guard teaser' but purpose is vague; mentions an alternative path to x402_sample_outline without clarifying what this tool does. Lacks a specific verb and resource.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The alternative path hint is unclear and does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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