costheta_decidePaid x402 Base mainnet tool: commit-and-reveal decision with a signed certificate. Requires PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and idempotency_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n_options | Yes | ||
| commitment | Yes | Caller commitment, usually sha256:<hex>. | |
| idempotency_key | Yes | Stable retry key. Same key + commitment returns the same paid result. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the paid aspect, commit-and-reveal, and signed certificate, but does not explain how the decision is computed, what the certificate attests to, or any side effects. The behavior remains largely opaque for a financial tool.
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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the paid nature and key requirements. It is concise and well-structured, though the brevity sacrifices essential details for clarity.
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 paid tool with no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits the decision outcome, how the signed certificate is used, the role of n_options, and any return format, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 67%, covering commitment and idempotency_key. The description only re-emphasizes idempotency_key and does not add meaning for n_options, which is left undocumented in both schema and description. It fails to compensate for the 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 identifies a specific action—commit-and-reveal decision—and includes context (paid, Base mainnet, signed certificate). It is clear about the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like costheta_random or costheta_witness beyond the word 'decide.'
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 its siblings. It only states that payment and idempotency_key are required, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline for selection among alternatives.
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 clearly distinct purpose: decide for commit-and-reveal decisions, random for public randomness, and witness for attesting commitments. The descriptions explicitly differentiate them, leaving no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'costheta_' prefix with lowercase names. However, 'random' is a noun rather than a verb like 'decide' and 'witness', which is a minor deviation from a strict verb-oriented pattern.
Three tools is well-scoped for the server's narrow purpose of providing randomness and commitment services. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: obtaining randomness (random), making a private commit-and-reveal decision (decide), and evidencing a commitment (witness). No obvious gaps in the stated domain.