vokko

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: calls are metered and unpaid probes return HTTP 402 at a stated $0.001 USDC price. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and idempotency/latency characteristics, keeping it short of 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 sentences with the core question front-loaded and no filler; the pricing and URL-mapping details follow in support. Nothing is wasted or 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-parameter probe with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys intent, cost behavior, and URL identity. It stops short of describing the returned health/pricing payload, which is only implied by the opening question.

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% and documents both url (https constraints, port, host restrictions) and method (enum, GET/POST). The description only adds the mapping 'same resource URL as the REST route', which does not extend parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific check ('is this paid API up, and what does it charge right now') against a specific resource (the endpoint URL), so the verb+resource are clear. It does not name or differentiate itself from ambiguous siblings such as pay_preflight or payto_check, so it falls short of 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?

The pricing note ('unpaid calls return HTTP 402 at $0.001 USDC') implies this is a pre-payment discovery/probe step, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative versus pay_preflight or payto_check. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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 full burden. It clarifies the result is 'Evidence only' and not a payable proof, which is useful context, but omits whether it is read-only (implied but unstated), whether results are paginated beyond the 20 cap, or what 'index row' means operationally.

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 terse sentences with no filler. The caveats are front-loaded after the core statement, though the telegraphic style borders on cryptic.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape (list of hosts, ordering) and confirm read-only nature. It leaves key operational details to inference, which is risky given the absence of structured metadata.

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%; the schema fully documents the optional query parameter, its case-insensitivity, substring behavior, and the 20-result cap. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The name 'find_payable' and description 'Alphabetical hosts whose index row includes x402' suggest it retrieves a list of hosts referencing x402, but the phrasing is indirect and jargon-heavy. 'x402' is unexplained, and the tool's relationship to siblings like lookup_host or payto_check is unclear. The purpose is ascertainable but not crisply stated.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lookup_host or list_changes. The caveat 'Not a rank and not a payable proof' hints at scope but doesn't state when to prefer this over other discovery tools.

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 burden, and it does disclose real behavior: ranking integrity ('placement is never sold'), the payment gate (unpaid calls return HTTP 402 at $0.005 USDC), and endpoint parity with the REST route. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or what a successful result set contains.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The pricing and parity notes are compact, though the transition from ranking to billing to URL parity is slightly disjointed.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral essentials: cost per call, the 402 gate, and ranking neutrality. It leaves the returned shape and ordering unspecified, which is the main remaining 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (query, type, limit, network, maxPriceUsd) are already documented in the schema with bounds and enums. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 states a concrete resource and qualifier: 'cheapest live x402 providers for a task', with an implied find/retrieve verb. It is clear what comes back, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like find_payable or payto_check, so an agent must infer which search surface applies.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (find_payable, pay_preflight, payto_check) that also deal with providers and payment. The only usage signal is implicit in the query parameter.

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 burden, but it does contribute real behavioral context: anonymous callers receive only the last 5 summaries while a subscriber for that origin gets full history, and results are newest-first. It still omits what a "summary" contains, rate limits, and what happens for non-subscribers at higher limits.

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 front-loaded, zero-waste sentences, but the compression has crossed into telegraphic ambiguity — "drift" and "summaries" are never grounded. Efficient in form, under-specified in substance.

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?

The required `domain` parameter is never mentioned in the description, and with no annotations and no output schema the description should at least indicate the return shape (what a "summary" or a change entry looks like) or that this is a read-only history lookup. Substantial gaps remain for a purpose this thin.

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 the domain normalization rules and the limit behavior (fake cap 5 for anonymous, subscriber default 20 / max 50, non-numeric ignored) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's tiering note reinforces the limit semantics but adds no syntax beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

"Newest-first drift" gestures at listing change history but never states what resource the changes belong to (DNS records? host config?) or that the input is a hostname. With 11 siblings in the same host/DNS family, an agent cannot confidently distinguish this tool from lookup_host or endpoint_health based on this text.

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 distinguishes anonymous vs subscriber *results* but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus siblings like lookup_host or participation_check, and names no alternatives or preconditions. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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 burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the report is cached, free, will not return 402, performs no re-probe, and enumerates body fields (cache.presenceStale, cache.callabilityStale, refresh.priceUsd/network/rest.url). It stops short of explaining what 'presenceStale'/'callabilityStale' actually mean for the caller.

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?

Front-loaded with the key fact (cached, free) and tightly written with no filler. The telegraphic fragments ('Does not 402', 'mcp.tool refresh_host') are dense and slightly cryptic, but each clause carries real information.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the operation, its cost/side-effect profile, the alternative to use for live data, and the shape of the returned body. The main gap is semantic meaning of the staleness flags, which the agent must infer.

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 single 'domain' parameter (normalization, label/length rules, rejection cases) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 the resource precisely as a cached host report and explicitly contrasts it with the live-probe sibling refresh_host ('Does not re-probe'), so an agent can distinguish it from refresh_host/refresh_host_protocol without opening the schema. It lacks a clean verb ('lookup' must be inferred from the name), which keeps it short of 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?

It signals when this tool is the right pick ('Cached... Free. Does not 402. Does not re-probe') and points at the alternative for the live case ('refresh (payable live re-probe... mcp.tool refresh_host)'). There is no explicit 'when-not' phrasing, but the cached-vs-payable routing is clear enough that the agent can choose between 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully signals that results are cached (potentially stale) and non-authoritative, but says nothing about freshness/TTL, how to refresh via the refresh_host* siblings, auth requirements, or failure behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves most behavior undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the cached-scope fact leads and the caveat follows. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of the completeness problem rather than the fix.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an opaque concept ('participation', 'evidence'), the description is too thin to tell an agent what it will receive or when the result is trustworthy. It should at minimum define participation, characterize the evidence payload, and point to the refresh path for stale cache.

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% and the single 'domain' parameter is exhaustively documented in the schema (normalization, label rules, rejections), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about how the domain relates to participation lookup, but it is not required to.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('participation status') with a caching modifier, and never defines what 'participation' means in this system. It gives no verb (retrieve? verify?) and no way to tell it apart from siblings like payto_check, verify_receipt, or lookup_host. It edges above a pure tautology only because of the 'Cached' scope qualifier and the disclaimer.

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 call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the refresh_host siblings that would clearly relate to a cached result. 'Not a legal finding' is an interpretation caveat, not usage guidance, so nothing routes the agent to this tool over its neighbors.

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; it usefully discloses that unpaid calls return HTTP 402 at $0.001 USDC and that the resource URL matches the REST route. It omits other traits an agent would want, such as auth requirements, caching/refresh behavior, and what a successful paid response contains.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the core question first and the pricing/error behavior immediately after. The telegraphic fragment 'Rails, endpoint, price, freshness' is slightly cryptic but efficient.

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 is responsible for return values; it names four fields but does not explain what 'rails' or 'freshness' actually contain, leaving the response shape under-specified for a tool whose output is its main value.

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%, with detailed normalization rules for 'domain' and an enum for 'intent', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline 3.

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 opening question 'Can an agent pay at this host?' plus the return list (rails, endpoint, price, freshness) makes the resource and result of the check clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like payto_check, find_payable, or participation_check, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 preflight framing implies it is called before attempting payment, which is useful context, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance against the several similarly named payment/host 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: unpaid calls return HTTP 402 at $0.002 USDC, and results are 'evidence, not a guarantee' (non-authoritative). However, it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, idempotency, or caching behavior for a tool that sits on a paid 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?

Three short sentences, with the core question front-loaded so an agent knows the tool's purpose from the first clause. Slight density cost from the terse 'Same resource URL as the REST route' closer, 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?

For a paid, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers cost and the trust caveat but leaves the result shape unclear beyond the hint that it returns 'evidence'. An agent still does not know what fields or verdict come back, which matters when composing this with verify_receipt or pay_preflight.

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%, including normalization rules for domain and the CAIP-2 enum for network, so the schema already does all parameter work. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is structured, which lands at the baseline 3.

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 opening question states a specific check: whether a payTo address is associated with a given domain, and the closing note ties it to a REST route. It distinguishes itself loosely from siblings like participation_check and verify_receipt, but never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative among the ten sibling tools. The only usage-adjacent content is the pricing/payment note, which describes cost rather than selection criteria.

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 burden and does meaningful work: it declares the tool is paid, documents the failure mode (HTTP 402 with x402Version and accepts), pins cost to refresh.priceUsd ($0.02 USDC on Base), and states a scope boundary ("Vokko never pays the target"). It still omits whether the probe emits traffic to the target or rate/limit behavior, so it is not fully transparent, but the payment/auth profile is unusually well disclosed.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; cost and payment contract come early. The phrase "named by lookup_host refresh.rest" is cryptic and costs a re-read, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only behavioral source. It covers payment mechanics well but never says what a successful probe returns or whether the target sees the probe — gaps the agent must guess at for a single-parameter network-touching tool.

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% and the schema itself exhaustively documents the domain normalization rules (scheme/port/path/www stripping, label constraints, 253-char cap, rejection cases). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

It states a specific action ("paid live re-probe") and names the sibling that supplies the host via lookup_host, which helps separate it from lookup_host itself. However, "re-probe" is never unpacked — what is probed, and at what layer, is left to inference, and the sibling refresh_host_protocol (likely the protocol-level variant) is not contrasted.

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: the phrase "named by lookup_host" sketches a workflow step and the 402 behavior hints at the paid path, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing against refresh_host_protocol or refresh_hosts_batch.

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 behavioral burden and does so for the most important trait: the tool is paid, and unpaid calls return HTTP 402 at $0.005 USDC on Base, with the full-host alternative at $0.02. It omits any note on rate limits, retry behavior, or what a successful probe yields.

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 core purpose front-loaded and no padding. 'Args domain, protocol' largely restates the schema, a minor redundancy, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 would need to explain what a probe returns (detector findings, status, errors) to be complete. It covers cost and the 402 path but says nothing about the success response, leaving a real gap for a two-parameter paid tool.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the complete protocol enum list and domain normalization rules. The description's abbreviated id list ('ucp, mcp, a2a, x402, and the other detector ids') adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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 ('Paid live probe of one protocol') and immediately scopes it against the sibling refresh_host, which handles the whole host. An agent can distinguish this from refresh_host and refresh_hosts_batch 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?

The contrast 'Full-host refresh_host stays $0.02' implicitly routes the agent: single protocol here, full host there. It gives clear selection context and names the alternative, but never states an explicit when-not condition (e.g. when a full-host refresh is preferable despite cost).

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 burden and does well: it discloses that the call is paid, the exact price formula ($0.01 + $0.002 × N USDC on Base), and that unpaid calls fail with HTTP 402. It does not say whether the probe is synchronous, how long it takes, or whether cached prior results are replaced.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the scope, arguments, failure mode, and price are all delivered in minimal space.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers cost, payment failure, and batch limits, which is the information an agent most needs before invoking. The main remaining gap is return-shape/timing, which nothing else in the definition supplies.

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 the domains array, its normalization rules, and the mode literal 'full'. The description merely restates the two argument names and the literal value, adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured data.

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 ('live re-probe of up to 10 hosts'), and the batch scope plus the name contrast with the singular sibling refresh_host. It stops short of explicitly naming refresh_host/refresh_host_protocol as the single-host alternatives.

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 'up to 10 hosts' batch framing and the 'Paid' qualifier tell an agent this is the multi-host paid path, but no sentence says when to prefer it over refresh_host or refresh_host_protocol, nor what the prerequisites are.

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 disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose that unpaid calls return HTTP 402 at $0.001 USDC, which explains cost and the access mechanic, but says nothing about rate limits, latency, caching, or authentication beyond the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The payment clause earns its place, and the REST-URL note is mildly useful for integration, though slightly tangential to tool selection.

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-parameter observational tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and the payment mechanic but omits the most important output question: what the trust score looks like (range, format, interpretation). That gap matters more here because there is no output schema to compensate.

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 (payTo format, the single-value network enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only names the two inputs and adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 states a specific resource (x402 seller trust score) scoped to a payTo and network, which is more than a tautology. However, it never differentiates itself from the many trust/verification siblings like payto_check, participation_check, or pay_preflight, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 the sibling checks, nor any prerequisites beyond the implicit payment gate. The word "Observational" hints at a read-only check, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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 burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important behavior: the tool is payment-gated and unpaid calls return HTTP 402 at $0.001 USDC. It stops short of describing what a failed settlement or address/amount mismatch produces, or whether the check is read-only and idempotent.

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 core question front-loaded so the purpose lands immediately. The trailing 'Same resource URL as the REST route' is a developer-facing detail that is marginal but not wasteful.

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 should signal what a verification returns (boolean? matched/mismatch detail?) and it does not. The payment-gating note is valuable, but for a 7-parameter settlement verifier with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only minimally 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 description coverage is 100% across all 7 parameters, including aliases (tx/txHash), amount formats, and the network enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific resource and check ('Did this USDC transfer settle to the expected address and amount?'), which tells an agent exactly what it validates. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like pay_preflight, payto_check, or find_payable, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 only usage-adjacent sentence covers pricing and transport ('Unpaid calls return HTTP 402 at $0.001 USDC', 'Same resource URL as the REST route') rather than when to call this versus pay_preflight or payto_check. No preconditions, no when-not-to-use, no named alternative.

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