Autonomy x402 Tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it discloses the most important behavior: this is a paid operation (x402 v1, 2.00 USDC on Base) with a defined outcome (grade A-D) and defined coverage (eight surfaces). It does not disclose failure modes (e.g., unreachable site, payment failure) but the monetary side effect is clearly flagged up front.

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 entire definition is one tight sentence that front-loads the payment requirement and then delivers scope, coverage list, output, and price with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool this is close to complete: payment mechanics, scope, and the grade output are all stated. However, there is no output schema and the return payload beyond 'grade A-D' is unspecified, and the x402 payment flow is named but not explained, leaving an agent to infer the rest.

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 required 'url' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful constraint that the target must be a 'public' site and exactly ONE, which is semantic value beyond the schema's 'absolute https URL' wording.

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 pairs a specific verb ('audit') with a concrete resource ('ONE public site') and enumerates the exact scope: eight named AI-agent readiness surfaces. It also states the expected outcome (a grade A-D) and the price, so an agent immediately understands what the tool does. The capitalized 'ONE' implicitly distinguishes it from the multi-site sibling agent_site_audit_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 description implies usage context — single public site, paid at 2.00 USDC via x402 v1 — but never explicitly says when to pick this over siblings like agent_site_audit_5 or web_fetch. The payment and 'ONE site' constraints give an agent enough to self-select for a single-site audit, but there is no when-not-to-use 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it does disclose that the call is pay-per-call and costs 7.00 USDC on Base, which is important financial context. It does not disclose response behavior, failure modes, auth, or rate limits, so the disclosure is partial.

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 two short sentences with the pricing and core function front-loaded. 'Pay-per-call' and the explicit price are slightly redundant but both are useful, so there is no meaningful waste.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation facts: what it audits, how many sites, that they must be public, and the cost. It does not describe the returned audit format, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (5 absolute https URLs), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'public sites' qualifier but no additional parameter syntax or constraints 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 names a specific operation (audit) with a clear resource (5 public sites) and the objective (AI-agent readiness). The '5 ... at once' wording differentiates it from the sibling agent_site_audit.

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 phrase 'audit 5 public sites at once' implies the intended use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over agent_site_audit or what conditions make the single-site variant preferable. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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 disclosure burden. It does disclose the payment mechanism, network, and USD pricing, which is useful. But it does not describe the response format, error behavior, rate limits, or any limits on the comma-separated list, so behavioral coverage is only basic.

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 efficient sentence that packs payment terms, network, currency, input format, and an example with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the most critical call constraint and remains highly readable.

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, read-only price lookup, the description is mostly complete: it names the input, output currency, payment cost, and settlement network. The absence of an output schema means a brief mention of the returned structure would improve completeness, but this is a minor gap for such a simple 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'coins' parameter as comma-separated CoinGecko ids. The description adds the same example and payment context, but does not materially deepen parameter semantics 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 it provides 'live crypto prices (USD)' for CoinGecko coin ids, with concrete examples. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement and is easily distinguishable from the sibling tools, which cover site audits, catalog generation, and wallet monitoring.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need live USD crypto prices by CoinGecko id, and it notes the pay-per-call nature. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to an alternative, leaving usage routing somewhat implicit.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that this is a paid operation via x402 v1 with a specific price and currency, which is essential for an agent deciding to invoke it. It also discloses the 40-page limitation though it does not cover failure modes or exact delivery format.

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 the payment info front-loaded. There is mild redundancy in stating payment twice ('Paid via standard x402...' and 'Price 3.00 USDC on Base'), but overall it is compact and scannable.

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 output schema, the description gives useful input constraints, cost, and the fact that output is a ready-to-ship llms.txt. However, it lacks details on how the result is returned to the user, what happens if the site exceeds 40 pages, or what occurs if the sitemap is missing. These gaps make it incomplete for a paid operation.

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 input schema already defines the single parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that the URL must be for a public site, that a sitemap will be used, and that the site must fit within 40 pages. This clarifies the expected parameter semantics well.

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 verb and resource: generate an llms.txt for a public site using its sitemap. It also adds a concrete page limit (40 pages). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like web_fetch or agent_site_audit, 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 description implies usage conditions: any public site, limited to 40 pages, requires a sitemap, and is a paid operation. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 clearly discloses the key behavior: this is a 'Pay-per-call' endpoint costing '0.50 USDC on Base' via x402 v1. It does not detail response format or error behavior, but the paid nature and price are openly stated.

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 brief and front-loads the payment mechanism before describing the contents. There is minor redundancy between 'Pay-per-call' and 'Price 0.50 USDC,' but the overall length is appropriate and every sentence adds relevant 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the expected deliverable and the cost. It could be more explicit about the return format, but for a simple informational pack with no parameters, the core details 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially covered. The description adds useful context about what the deliverable contains, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the tool's deliverable: an 'x402 endpoint catalog with copy-paste curl, plus an 8-point agent-readiness checklist.' It is distinct in content from the sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 tool should be used when an agent wants the AI-Agent Starter Pack, x402 endpoint examples, or the agent-readiness checklist. It provides context but no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives, so the usage situation is only inferred.

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. It does disclose that the tool is pay-per-call and costs 1.00 USDC, and that it returns a catalog/metrics payload. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, side effects, or output structure beyond 'products list'.

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 highly concise: two clauses convey cost and content with no filler. It is front-loaded with the pay-per-call warning, which is useful, though leading with the tool's core function might have been slightly clearer.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level envelope of what is returned. Still, 'metrics payload' is vague, and there is no detail on the response format or exactly which storefront is being referenced, which could leave an agent uncertain.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and it does not mislead about any input requirements.

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 indicates that this tool returns a storefront catalog along with a metrics payload and products list. It avoids being a tautology of the name, although it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch'.

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 use this tool versus sibling tools, nor any mention of preconditions or alternatives. The only usage-related information is the pay-per-call pricing, which is a cost consideration rather than a usage guideline.

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 disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it states the paid x402 mechanism and exact price, the hard caps, the native-coin exclusion, and the behavior when results are partial, including the exact flags and metadata returned. It also gives no indication of destructive side effects, and no contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficient, with each sentence contributing information about payment, limits, exclusions, or partial-response behavior. There is minor redundancy in stating payment both as 'Paid via standard x402 v1' and 'Price 5.00 USDC on Base', which keeps it from being perfectly concise.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a strong amount of context: payment requirement, cost, response caps, native-balance exclusion, and partial-response metadata. It does not spell out the exact JSON shape of returned balances or transactions or the authentication flow, but the essential calling and response behavior is covered well.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter adequately as 'Base address to watch, e.g. 0x...', and the description mostly reinforces that by mentioning 'one address' and the Base network. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource as a Base wallet snapshot and quantifies exactly what it returns: up to 200 ERC-20 balances and at most 100 transactions for one address. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling wallet_watch_snapshot, and it leads with payment details rather than an action verb, so it is slightly below the strongest possible purpose statement.

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 when the tool is appropriate by listing its limits (200 tokens, 100 transactions) and by explicitly excluding native coin balances. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of wallet_watch_snapshot or which alternative to choose when native balances or higher limits are needed, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses the payment mechanism (x402, USDC on Base, price 1.00), the bounded response behavior, the exclusion of native coin balances, and what happens when the provider returns extra data, including resulting partially-limited flags and source/error metadata.

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 every clause earns its place: payment, price, core capability, exclusions, and partial-response behavior are all covered without filler. The most decision-relevant information (payment and scope) is 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does a good job covering return-related behavior, complete/partial flags, and metadata. A minor gap is that the exact shape of a successful response and the meaning of the specific flag fields are not fully explained, though they are named.

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 single address parameter as a Base address. The description adds 'for one address' and reinforces the Base network, but it does not materially extend semantics 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 a specific action and resource: a Base wallet snapshot returning up to 20 ERC-20 token balances and at most 10 recent transactions for one address. It also disambiguates from likely siblings like wallet_watch_pro via explicit scope limits ('up to', 'at most') and by noting native coin balances are not included.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool instead of alternatives such as wallet_watch_pro or crypto_price. The bounded nature of the data and the one-address scope imply a use case, but no direct 'use when' or 'use instead' instructions are present.

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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful traits: pay-per-call via x402, exact price of 0.01 USDC on Base, and the returned fields. However, it does not mention error behavior, redirects, response-size limits, or rate limits, which remain a transparency gap for a no-annotation 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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first identifies the operation and payment model, the second states the exact price. Every phrase earns its place and the billing implication is 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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value; it does by listing status, content-type, and body. It also discloses the cost model. It could add boundary conditions like size limits or failure modes, but the core invocation contract is covered.

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 url parameter is already documented as an absolute https URL. The description's 'any public URL' adds context about accessibility but does not materially extend what the schema already says.

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 ('fetch') and names the resource ('any public URL') plus the three return fields (status, content-type, body), so the core function is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like agent_site_audit, but none of the siblings advertise generic direct URL fetching, so confusion risk is low.

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 is given on when to choose web_fetch over alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies a general fetch use case, but it never names exclusions (e.g., private or authenticated URLs) or sibling tools like agent_site_audit for site-level analysis.

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