FREE research teaser (3 bullets). Convert ladder: this tool → paid x402_research_outline 0.01 USDC → x402_research_brief 0.02 USDC Base. Body {topic?} default x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Topic or https URL (default: x402) |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct primary purpose (discovery, health, free sample, paid outline, paid brief, alternative scrub), but the conversion ladder is mentioned in multiple tools, which could cause slight confusion for an agent about which free tool leads where.
All tools consistently use the 'x402_' prefix followed by a descriptive compound noun (e.g., discovery, health, research_brief, sample_outline), creating a predictable and clear naming pattern.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a research API with a free-to-paid conversion ladder, covering all necessary stages without superfluous or missing tools.
The tools cover the complete research generation flow (discovery, health check, free sample, paid outline, paid brief), with an alternative scrub demo. A minor gap is the absence of a history or status tool for previously generated research.
