Open Claw x402 Tools

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: the $0.02 cost, the 20000 atomic USDC on Base denomination, and x402 payment flow — critical for an agent that must authorize spend. It stops short of saying whether results are estimates or authoritative legal determinations, which matters given the 'Likely' framing.

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 sentences, no filler, and the purpose precedes the pricing note — good front-loading. The only cost is that the first sentence is compressed to the point of grammatical awkwardness ('Likely permits and inspections for...'), which trades a little clarity 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?

For a read-only, schema-complete tool with payment implications, the description covers cost and inputs adequately. However, with no output schema, the description is the only place to indicate the shape of the response — whether it returns permit names, fees, agencies, or confidence levels — and it does not.

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%, with every parameter including aliases, enum values, and the 200-character limit documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes that address, city, and project type are the inputs, adding no syntax or aliasing detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is correct here.

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 resource is identifiable — permits and inspections for a given address/city plus project type — but the verb is hedged with 'Likely,' which reads as an estimate qualifier rather than a clear action. An agent can guess the tool returns probable permit requirements, but the phrasing leaves ambiguity about whether this is a lookup or a prediction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The sibling list (voice_rewrite, writing_grade, pipe_check, etc.) contains no adjacent permit/real-estate tool, so no differentiation is possible or offered — the definition simply presents the tool without routing 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?

The one genuinely useful piece of information is cost: $0.09 / 90000 atomic USDC on Base paid via x402, which annotations do not cover and which matters before an agent spends funds. However, nothing is said about what the call actually does, whether the payment is charged on success or on every attempt, or what happens after enqueue. There is also tension with readOnlyHint=true, since the call moves funds — a payment gate rather than a data mutation, but the description should make that explicit.

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 text is short, but it is not concise in the useful sense: it is front-loaded with a self-contradictory pricing fragment ("$0. Price $0.09") and omits the one thing that should come first — what the tool does. Nothing about purpose earns its place because purpose is absent.

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 and a vague name, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool's effect, and it explains none of it. An agent cannot tell what a successful call produces, what "ping-verify" enqueueing means, or what the $0.09 buys.

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 both parameters (origin, contact) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no additional meaning about what an "origin" must be, how contact is used, or what enqueue semantics imply, but it is not required to compensate here.

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 never states what the tool does — no verb, no resource. It consists solely of pricing text ("$0. Price $0.09 (90000 atomic USDC on Base). Pays via x402.") that gives no clue whether list_seat lists seats, enqueues a URL, or something else. The schema's "origin ... enqueue for ping-verify" is the only hint of function, and it is not in the description at all.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or how it relates to any alternative. None of the sibling tools (settle_proof, pipe_check, etc.) is referenced, and the agent has no basis for choosing this tool over another.

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 only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real value by disclosing the cost ($0.02 / 20000 atomic USDC on Base) and the x402 payment flow — a critical, non-obvious behavioral constraint. It stops short of describing result count, latency, or failure/refund behavior on failed payment.

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 sentences, no filler: capability and modes first, then cost and payment mechanism. Every clause earns its place and the key constraint (paid call) is not buried.

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 two-enum, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, and the payment prerequisite, which is what an agent needs before invoking. The one remaining gap is the shape of the returned screening results, which the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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% with both parameters as fully described enums, so the schema carries the semantics. The description restates the same six scan values and the stocks/crypto split without adding format, defaulting, or combination rules (e.g., whether market affects scan semantics). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (scan) and resource (stocks or crypto) and enumerates the six concrete screening modes, so the agent knows exactly what capability this is. Sibling tools are unrelated domains, so no differentiation is required, but the description never says what the scan produces (symbols, prices, ranks).

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 only implied by the enumerated scan types; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over alternatives (there are none among siblings) or what preconditions apply beyond payment. The pricing/payment sentence gives practical context but not selection 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?

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the data source is bundled public excerpts and access costs $0.005 via x402 payment, which is useful operational information. It does not say what happens on invalid codes or rate limits, keeping it from 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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is looked up and from where, the second covers pricing and payment. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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 read-only lookup with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It could go further in describing the return shape (e.g., whether codes are mapped to descriptions) since no output schema exists, but the core operational context is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters and aliases. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the code types already implied. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Look up') and specific resources (CPT/HCPCS/ICD-10 and CARC/RARC codes) plus the data source (bundled public CDC/CMS/X12 excerpts). No sibling tool overlaps this domain, so an agent can identify its purpose immediately.

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 by the lookup purpose, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and there are no alternatives to contrast with. The payment note is informative but does not clarify selection 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?

Adds meaningful context beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: the $0.01 price, 10000 atomic USDC on Base, and x402 payment flow. However, it doesn't explain what 'scored' means, how fresh the ledger is, or what will happen if payment is missing, leaving real behavioral 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?

Two short sentences with the resource and format front-loaded and cost/payment second. No filler; only minor awkwardness from the jargon-heavy 'Scored paper trade log' opener.

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?

Covers format, source, and payment, and parameters are schema-documented, so an agent could call it. But with no output schema, the description should say more about what the JSON log contains (fields, scoring) rather than only naming it.

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 setup and since are already fully documented downstream. The description adds nothing about filter semantics or matching behavior, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific resource returned (a scored paper trade log from the desk paper ledger) and the format (JSON). It lacks an explicit verb and doesn't differentiate from any sibling, but the resource is clear enough to identify that this retrieves ledger data.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The payment note hints at a paid-data use case but gives no decision criteria for choosing this tool over others.

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?

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that each call costs $0.02 (20000 atomic USDC on Base) and settles via x402 — critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It still omits what happens if payment fails or whether a charge is incurred on an unsuccessful probe, so not 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?

Three short sentences with the capability first and cost/payment second; nothing redundant, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 convey what a probe returns (status codes? payment challenges? endpoint list?), and it does not. Cost and payment are covered, but the result shape of this deliberately obscure tool is left entirely to inference.

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% for the single optional `url` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying the no-URL mode means 'up to five catalog endpoints', but nothing about format or validity constraints for the URL itself.

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?

Names a concrete action (probe) and its target (a public URL or up to five catalog endpoints), and the jargon '402 pipe' is at least bounded by the payment sentences. However, '402 pipe probe' is never explained in plain terms, so an agent must already know the x402 protocol to know what a 'probe' actually yields.

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 the two modes (pass a URL vs. scan catalog endpoints), and the schema parameter description explicitly says 'Omit to scan catalog endpoints.' But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites (wallet balance), and no named alternative among siblings.

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 establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the single most decision-critical fact an agent needs: this call costs $0.02, paid as 20000 atomic USDC on Base via x402. That is a spend disclosure the schema cannot express. It stops short of describing what happens if payment fails or how payTo and origin interact at resolution time.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the cost. Nearly every clause earns its place — the price and chain details are load-bearing for an agent that may spend money. Slight redundancy between 'Price $0.02' and '20000 atomic USDC on Base', which express the same fact in two units.

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 three optional params at full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition compensates by naming the return shape (tx hash, amount, age) and the payment cost. That covers what an agent needs to call it. The gap is the payment-failure and payTo/origin-resolution behavior, which matters given this is a paid call.

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 limit, payTo, and origin are each documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only restates the payTo scope and implies the limit behavior via 'Last N'; it adds no guidance on the origin-versus-payTo resolution precedence, which is the one genuinely ambiguous interaction in 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the last N on-chain USDC settles for a payTo, with the returned fields (tx hash, amount, age) named. The purpose is unmistakable. Sibling differentiation is absent, though the sibling list (city_permit_rules, market_screener, voice_rewrite) is unrelated, so there is no realistic confusion to resolve.

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 never says when to reach for this tool or when not to, and offers no alternative. The only usage-adjacent detail is that it settles payment via x402, which describes the mechanism rather than the selection criteria. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the purpose sentence.

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 and openWorldHint. The description usefully adds behavior the annotations don't cover: the tool is a paid endpoint costing $0.05 (50000 atomic USDC on Base) via x402, which is critical for an agent to know before calling. However, it says nothing about data freshness, staleness, or what happens if payment fails.

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 purpose followed by cost. No filler. Minor deduction because the payment mechanics (x402, atomic units, chain) are stated telegraphically without explaining what the agent must do to satisfy them.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and 'as JSON' is thin — no indication of the signal fields, count, or shape. The payment precondition is well covered, but the payload an agent will receive remains opaque.

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; baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The relevant 'parameter' is really the payment precondition, which the description does address.

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 names a specific resource ('Current trade signals') and its source ('the desk signals file'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't need sibling differentiation because no other sibling is a trade-signal source, but it also relies on 'signals' being self-explanatory rather than defining the content.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any guidance on how often to poll or whether the signals are time-sensitive. The only implicit usage signal is the price line, which tells the agent the call costs money but not when the cost is justified.

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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important non-annotation context: the tool costs $0.02 (20000 atomic USDC on Base) and pays via x402, which is critical behavioral information for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 three short sentences: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by the exact style list and payment details. Every sentence contributes useful information with no 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 rewrite tool with no output schema, full schema descriptions, and annotations covering safety and openness, the description supplies the core purpose, style options, and payment model. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the related writing_grade sibling or expected return shape, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 the text/style parameters, aliases, enum values, and the 4000-character limit. The description lists the style names, but this merely duplicates the enum and does not add syntax, format, or selection guidance 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Rewrite text into a named style,' and enumerates the available styles. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the related sibling writing_grade, which an agent might otherwise confuse with a writing-transformation tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment note. The payment requirement is useful context, but usage selection is left entirely to inference from the purpose statement.

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 and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main added value is the commercial behavior: the $0.005 price (5000 atomic USDC on Base) and x402 payment flow, which the agent would otherwise not know before invoking. It does not cover failure modes such as what happens if payment fails or the text exceeds its limit, so it stops short of full transparency.

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: the capability and its outputs come first, and the payment terms follow immediately. Every clause carries information an agent needs, with no 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return shape (a 0-100 score plus top 3 fixes) and discloses the payment requirement. For a single-parameter tool this is nearly complete; only the payment-failure behavior and any latency or retry expectations are unstated.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage including the 'max 4000 characters' constraint. The description adds nothing about the input beyond what the schema states, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Score a draft 0-100') and names the exact scoring dimensions (clarity, voice, concision) plus the deliverables (top 3 fixes). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling voice_rewrite, which rewrites rather than scores, without opening either 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?

Usage is only implied: it is evident the tool is for evaluating a draft, but the description never says when to pick this over voice_rewrite, nor any when-not conditions or prerequisites. No explicit routing guidance to a sibling is given.

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