pulsefeed-x402

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds detailed behavioral traits: it reads the challenge from both response body and header, performs multiple checks, and provides a verdict. No contradictions with annotations.

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 but packs substantial information without redundancy. Front-loaded with the key action. Slight improvement could be breaking into multiple sentences for readability, but it remains 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?

The tool has multiple checks and no output schema. The description mentions a verdict but does not detail the return structure (e.g., exact fields returned or error handling). Given the complexity, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 'url' with schema description 'The x402 endpoint URL to verify'. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, but the parameter is straightforward.

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's purpose: checking safety of an unknown x402 endpoint before paying. It lists specific checks (liveness, trust score, anomaly flags, receiver stability, uptime, verdict). This distinguishes it from siblings like x402_changes or x402_data_sample, which have different focuses.

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 explicitly says 'Before paying an unknown x402 endpoint', indicating the primary use case. It does not mention when not to use or provide alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently clear for an 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?

Annotations already declare safety hints (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it checks for install scripts, abandonment, repository/license, downloads, provenance, and provides a verdict. No contradictions.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and details, and every sentence adds value (what it checks, frequency of issue, cost). No 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?

Given the single parameter and simple audit functionality, the description covers the main checks and verdict categories. It could hint at output format but overall is sufficiently 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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'package' with example format. The description does not add further semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: auditing an MCP server or npm package before installation. It uses specific verbs ('audit') and resources (npm package) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pre-install safety checks.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool ('Before installing...'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. It provides a strong usage trigger.

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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it depends on historical snapshots ('an event exists only because a snapshot from before it exists') and details the types of changes detected. It does not describe the response format, but this is a minor gap given the strong annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the punchy 'The rug pull check' and efficiently packs a lot of useful information into a compact paragraph. The trailing 'Free.' is unnecessary filler, and the parenthetical about 'npm i' is slightly verbose, but overall every other sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 tool with simple optional parameters and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains purpose, usage, and a key limitation (snapshot dependency). Since there is no output schema, the lack of an explicit return shape (e.g., a list of change events) is a minor gap, but the description still provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage: 'days' as a window and 'packages' as npm package names with the note to omit for the whole feed. The description only repeats 'Pass your own dependency list' without adding new syntax or format details. With full schema coverage, 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?

The description opens with 'The rug pull check' and explicitly states it 'answers what CHANGED after it was adopted,' listing concrete examples (install script added, ownership swapped, repository removed, unpublished, provenance lost). It directly distinguishes itself from the sibling `mcp_check_server`, which covers current safety, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 contrasts itself with `mcp_check_server` ('answers whether a package is safe TODAY; this answers what CHANGED'), clearly telling the agent when to choose this tool over the alternative. It also instructs users to 'Pass your own dependency list to check it in one call' and mentions the option to omit packages for the ecosystem feed, giving concrete usage context.

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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the data source (daily audit of MCP server catalog), the report contents (counts, deltas, samples), and that it is free. This exceeds the baseline and provides a clear behavioral picture without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences, with the first sentence densely listing key metrics and the second providing the data source and cost. Every clause adds information, and there is no redundancy with annotations or schema. The structure is efficient and 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 no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns (counts, deltas, sample) and its provenance. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure) or any caveats about the daily audit. Still, it is sufficiently complete for an overview report tool with rich annotations.

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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% (no properties), and the description appropriately focuses on the report content rather than parameters, earning the baseline of 4.

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 that the tool provides a state of MCP security, detailing specific metrics (arbitrary install scripts, abandonment, missing repository/license) and outputs (day-over-day deltas, sample of flagged servers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on x402 endpoints, pulsefeed products, etc.

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 to use the tool (when wanting an overview of MCP security) and notes it's from a daily audit, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context and sibling names suggest a comparison tool (mcp_check_server) exists, but no direct guidance is provided.

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 indicate safety; description adds value by listing products and highlighting the client-side spend-cap gotcha, which is behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence effectively conveys scope; the list of products and gotcha is dense but well-packed with 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?

Description names products and a gotcha but does not specify output format or additional details; adequate for a simple listing tool given no output schema.

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?

No parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by detailing what is listed, exceeding the baseline expectation.

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 lists PulseFeed's paid products and payment via x402, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are specific x402 operations or security reports.

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 use for obtaining product/payment info but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusion 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key behavioral details: data is derived from compounding time-series that cannot be reconstructed after the fact, and the tool is free. No contradictions with annotations.

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. The first sentence immediately conveys the purpose, the second adds essential context about the data source and cost. Every word 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?

The description explains what changes are included and notes the data limitation, which is sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter. However, with no output schema, some guidance on the return shape (e.g., list of objects with fields) would improve 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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter ('days' with description and default). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: it reports recent changes in the x402 ecosystem, listing specific categories like stopped challenges, receiver changes, price changes, etc. This differentiates it from sibling tools such as x402_ecosystem_stats or x402_incidents.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (for recent changes derived from time-series) and notes that data cannot be reconstructed. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to avoid using it.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, ensuring the agent knows it is safe. The description adds context about the specific data returned (services, servers, incidents), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 parameters and a straightforward output, the description adequately lists the contents. However, it omits the format or structure of the returned data (e.g., JSON). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor 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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline of 4 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 clearly states it provides a free sample of the PulseFeed Data API, listing specific data components (top-10 x402 services with full records, top-10 MCP servers, and 3 live incidents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_ecosystem_stats or x402_leaderboard, which likely offer different aggregated or analytical 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?

The term 'FREE sample' implies it is a limited preview for initial exploration, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied 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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'Free' but no additional behavioral context like rate limits or data freshness. With annotations covering safety, the description provides adequate but not rich 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?

The description is one concise sentence with a list of contents followed by 'Free.' It is front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words, and is easy to parse quickly.

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, no-output-schema tool with good annotations, the description covers the main metrics. It could mention data update frequency, but given simplicity, it is reasonably 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter description is needed.

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 health of the whole x402 agent-payment ecosystem' and enumerates specific metrics (tracked/alive/dead counts, catalog-accuracy audit, risk-level distribution, etc.), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_x402_endpoint or x402_incidents.

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 says 'Free' but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_x402_endpoint or x402_leaderboard. The list of contents implies it's for an overview, but lacks when-not or alternative suggestions.

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 provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is free, lists specific anomaly categories, and mentions on-chain references on Base. It does not contradict annotations and provides warnings about usage.

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 extremely concise yet packs detailed information: anomaly types, on-chain references, and usage advice. Every sentence carries value without unnecessary fluff.

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 adequately explains the nature of returned data (anomalies with on-chain references) and lists examples. However, it could be more explicit about the format (e.g., list of objects) for full 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter (days). The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema's description of the look-back window, so a score of 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?

The title and description clearly specify the tool's purpose: listing live x402 security incidents (anomalies) with on-chain references. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing specific anomaly types and emphasizing it's measurements, not accusations.

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 guidance ('Check before paying anything') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_x402_endpoint or mcp_security_report. It lacks explicit when-not or exclusion clauses.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it's 'Free' and clarifies the ranking metric (Trust Score), providing useful extra context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and key details (ranking metric, data fields, and cost) with no unnecessary 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 no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's function. Minor gap: no mention of output format (e.g., JSON list) or pagination, but acceptable 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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is 100%. No additional param info needed. Tool is straightforward; the description succinctly explains what the output includes.

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?

Specifically states the tool lists 'Top x402 services ranked by the open PulseFeed Trust Score (0-100), with price and network', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like check_x402_endpoint or x402_working_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?

Implies use for getting a leaderboard of services, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternative (e.g., x402_working_services) to choose instead. The word 'Free' is a hint but no exclusions.

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?

Descriptions adds context beyond annotations: it returns alive services ranked by trust score and risk map, and states it's free. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint.

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 concise sentences that front-load the key purpose and usage guidance. Every word adds value.

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?

No output schema, but description mentions list of services and risk map. Adequate for a simple read-only tool with no parameters.

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?

No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as description adds no parameter info but is not needed.

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 title and description clearly state the tool lists live x402 services ranked by PulseFeed Trust Score and includes an ecosystem risk map. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_x402_endpoint and x402_leaderboard.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to pick a service with a track record instead of paying an endpoint you have not checked,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool and implying an alternative approach.

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