x402 Gateway (OMNIGATE)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses significant behavior: paid tiers, upfront $0.25 max-tier charge, unused difference owed on x402 (not auto-refunded), Arc escrow capturing only the used tier, max 32 paths, and optional ticker pulling extra paths before charging. It stops short of covering failure modes or invalid payment behavior, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 purpose and payment model are front-loaded, and the dense paragraph earns most of its length by covering pricing, charging, and limits. However, it is a single run-on block, and some details like 'Not financial advice' are secondary; a slightly tighter structure would improve readability.

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 complex paid tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a lot: it explains the return concept (consensus, coherence, gate), pricing tiers, payment rails, and path limits. It is nearly complete but does not spell out failure behavior or exact output shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaningful context about path-count pricing tiers, optional ticker pulling extra paths before charging, and arc_auth_id escrow semantics. Some parameters such as sources, wallet_address, and payment_tx_hash are left to the schema, so it does not fully compensate beyond 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 a specific function: scoring whether trading-signal paths agree via confidence-weighted consensus, coherence, and a pass/block gate. The tool name 'interfere' is opaque, but the description immediately clarifies the purpose as 'Coherent Gate'. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like leviathan_interfere or x402_contract, which keeps it from 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?

Usage is implied through the scoring/gate purpose and payment rails, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description explains tiers and rails but leaves the agent to infer the selection context.

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?

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that it is paid (x402/USDC), the $0.25 max-tier upfront charge, how the x402 difference and Arc rail capture behave ('x402 difference recorded as owed, Arc rail captures only the used tier'), the degraded-mode behavior when Leviathan is unavailable, and that it errors before charging when there are no paths. Those billing, failure and limit details are exactly the behavioral context annotations would otherwise supply.

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?

It is front-loaded with the identity and paid nature before the operational details, and billing/failure sentences earn their place for a payment-bearing tool. It is slightly dense with billing nuance ('x402 difference recorded as owed') and repeats signal options already in the enum, keeping it just below a 5.

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 an 8-parameter, paid tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the operational shape (consensus, coherence 0-1, pass/block gate), the payment rails, the fallback path when Leviathan is unavailable, the pre-charge error case, and the 32-path cap. Nothing essential for correct invocation is left to guesswork, and the schema fills in parameter-level detail.

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%, so the schema already documents ticker, signal_type enum, paths, sources, and payment fields, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only a small clarification that the 'Max 32 paths' total includes the Leviathan-added path, which explains the schema's maxItems of 31, but it introduces no syntax or semantic detail for the remaining parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource chain ('Fetches the SML Leviathan signal... adds it as one path... runs the same coherence check as interfere') and names the sibling 'interfere' it complements. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from interfere and sml_discover without opening a schema.

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 gives clear selecting context by anchoring to 'interfere' as the baseline operation and adding the Leviathan signal path, so an agent can infer this is the version to call when it wants Leviathan plus coherence. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it versus interfere, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact not present in structured data: the call is FREE. It does not disclose what the response actually contains, which matters for a discovery tool with no output schema.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the resource is stated before the secondary purpose. Slightly terse for the ambiguity it leaves, but nothing is wasted.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent gets back, and it only gestures at 'where to inspect fresh payment requirements'. For an entry-point tool that other calls depend on, that leaves a meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter meaning for the description to compensate for.

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 verb 'Find' plus the resource 'x402 Gateway contract' gives a concrete target, and the second clause indicates it also surfaces where payment requirements live. However, 'where to inspect fresh payment requirements' is vague about the actual output, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling x402_contract, which plausibly does something similar.

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 when-to-use guidance is given and neither sibling (sml_status, x402_contract) is named or differentiated. An agent must infer that this is an entry-point/discovery call rather than a contract-query call.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that this is a free public identity and payment-rail check, but does not cover authentication needs, rate limits, or return format; with annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. It states the action and resource immediately, and the FREE note is relevant cost context.

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 low complexity, zero parameters, and rich annotations, the definition is nearly complete. It implies the returned information is gateway identity and canonical payment rail, though it could be slightly clearer about the exact response contents since no output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document beyond the empty schema. Per the baseline for zero parameters, this is adequately specified.

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 gives a specific verb, "Check," and a specific resource, the public x402 Gateway identity and canonical payment rail. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings sml_discover or x402_contract.

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 states that the check is FREE, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or when not to use it. An agent must infer the usage context from the name alone.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the $0.005 USDC cost on Base, x402 payment challenge behavior for unpaid calls, the four voting paths, abstention behavior, the coherence formula, gate_pass requirements, and that Jev review only runs on a pass. This is substantial behavioral context beyond a simple check endpoint.

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 dense but purpose is front-loaded with the cost and the core question, followed by use/don't-use guidance. It is long for a single paragraph and packs in internal voting details, but almost every sentence contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.

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 an eight-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the checking behavior, payment prerequisites, voting paths, abstention rules, and what happens on pass. It leaves some return-shape details implicit, but the core semantics needed to call and interpret the gate are present.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description still adds meaning by explaining that manifest_url activates the payload_safety path only when it names an npm/PyPI/crates package, that price_sanity compares the quote against policy_cap_usdc or the default cap table, and that v1 is cap-only with no historical median.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checks whether an agent wallet should pay a payee a quoted USDC amount. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming interfere as the alternative for trading signals and stating this tool moves no funds.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for: vetting a payee/invoice immediately before an agent wallet pays it' and 'Don't use when' the need is an actual payment, a trading signal, or a free lookup. It also names the sibling tool interfere when a trading signal is needed, leaving little ambiguity about when this tool applies.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the concrete fields returned and flagging that the call is 'FREE', which tells the agent no x402 payment is incurred by inspecting the contract itself.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return contents. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so by enumerating the key fields, including the 'rule for resolving fresh target requirements' which hints at downstream use. Slightly incomplete in that the actual return shape/nesting and how to consume the rule are not spelled out.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object consistent with the no-arg design.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect the canonical x402 payment contract') and enumerates the payload it exposes (network, USDC asset, payTo, headers, resolution rule). An agent knows exactly what this tool is for without opening any other record.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear this is a read-only inspection of the payment contract, and 'FREE' signals no payment path is triggered. It never says when to prefer this over the sibling tools (sml_discover, sml_status) or what prerequisite/alternatives exist, leaving routing to inference.

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