Wever Pay Public Testnet Alpha

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists what the tool inspects, implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication needs, error behavior for invalid serviceId, or any constraints like rate limits. The description adds some value beyond the bare name, but lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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 12-word sentence that immediately identifies the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides reasonable coverage of what the tool returns. However, it does not explain the output structure beyond listing a few fields, nor does it contextualize when to use the returned data (e.g., for purchase decisions). The presence of siblings is not leveraged to add completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (serviceId), the description must explain how to obtain or format the serviceId. It does not provide any elaboration, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the parameter name alone. This is insufficient for proper tool invocation.

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 the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'one versioned service', listing specific attributes (exact price, schemas, testnet settlement terms, content hash). This distinguishes it from sibling tools 'purchase_service' and 'search_services', which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings. The implied usage is for inspecting a single service, but explicit direction would improve clarity.

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 fully carries the burden. It discloses the multi-step behavior (challenge, then purchase), mentions a durable receipt, and implies state mutation. However, it omits details on error handling, side effects like spending deduction, or permission requirements.

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 dense sentence. It packs technical details but lacks structure for quick comprehension. Front-loading the protocol helps, but the length and jargon reduce readability. Could benefit from splitting into steps or a clearer purpose statement.

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 7 parameters (6 required, nested input object), no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error scenarios, or the relationship between the challenge and purchase phases, leaving agents under-informed.

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 0%, yet the description only implicitly references 'paymentPayload' via the retry step. It does not explain the meaning, format, or constraints of any of the seven parameters (serviceId, serviceContentHash, purchaseId, buyerAgentId, spendingCeilingAtomic, input). This is a critical gap.

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 two-step protocol involving an x402 v2 challenge followed by a signed payment payload to receive fulfillment and a receipt. It uses specific technical terms and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_service and search_services.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It describes the process but lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to avoid it. No guidance on when to choose purchase_service vs. get_service or search_services.

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 carry the full burden. It only says 'Search', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, idempotency, rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. The description is too vague to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavioral traits.

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 12-word sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity; it could include more useful details without becoming verbose. Still, no wasted 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 four parameters (two with fixed enums) and no output schema, the description lacks details about return format, pagination, ordering, or result interpretation. It does not describe what a successful search returns or how to handle errors. The description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'query' relates to 'desired outcome' and 'maximumPriceAtomic' to 'exact commercial constraints', but it does not explain the 'asset' and 'network' parameters (both single-value enums, which are left unexplained). No mention of parameter constraints like maxLength, minLength, or minimum. The description adds minimal value 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 the tool searches an authoritative public testnet directory, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Wever Pay's authoritative public testnet directory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_service' (retrieves a specific service) and 'purchase_service' (buys a service) by focusing on discovery.

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 searching 'by desired outcome and exact commercial constraints', which implies use for discovery, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_service' instead). No guidance is provided on when not to use it or required prerequisites.

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