pulsefeed-x402

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral details: it checks liveness, trust score, scam flags, and returns a verdict. It also notes it is free and mentions a statistic about dead endpoints, which is useful 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?

The description is concise with two sentences plus a standalone 'Free.' It front-loads the main purpose and list of checks in the first sentence, then adds a relevant statistic. No unnecessary words; every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job outlining what the tool returns (liveness, trust score, scam/anomaly flags, receiver stability, payoff/avoid verdict). It covers the key aspects for a single-parameter tool, though the exact output format is not specified.

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 single 'url' parameter. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema's description ('The x402 endpoint URL to verify'), so the baseline 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: to check an x402 endpoint for safety before paying, listing specific checks (liveness, trust score, scam flags, etc.) and indicating it provides a pay/avoid verdict. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like x402_changes or x402_leaderboard by focusing on endpoint verification.

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 advises using this tool 'before paying an unknown x402 endpoint', which provides a clear context for use. While it does not list alternative tools for other scenarios, the sibling list includes other x402 tools for different tasks, implying this is the safety check tool.

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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: daily audit of ~950 servers, free, day-over-day deltas, and a sample of currently-flagged servers. 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 two sentences, very concise. It front-loads the purpose and key inclusions, then adds source info. Every phrase adds value with 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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides a thorough summary: what the report covers (install scripts, abandoned, no repo/license, deltas, flagged servers) and context (daily audit, ~950 servers, free). It is complete for a zero-parameter information 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?

There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). Per guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info since none exist.

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 provides the 'State of MCP Security' with specific metrics (install scripts, abandoned, no repo/license) and day-over-day deltas. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a high-level aggregated report, unlike the more specific check tools and x402 tools.

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 for obtaining security statistics from a daily audit of ~950 servers, and it's free. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, the context makes it clear this is the go-to for overall security status, and sibling tools have distinct purposes.

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?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) by noting the data is derived from compounding time-series that cannot be reconstructed. This informs the agent of an important limitation not obvious from annotations alone.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose, concise enumeration of categories, and critical notes (irreproducibility, cost). 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose and key behavioral traits. However, without an output schema, it could describe the return format or structure more explicitly.

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 covers the single parameter 'days' with default 7 and description. The description does not add further semantic value, 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 description clearly states the tool lists recent changes in the x402 ecosystem, enumerating specific categories (services dark, receiver swaps, price changes, recoveries, newly-seen services). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_incidents or x402_ecosystem_stats.

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 general use for recent changes but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentioning 'Free.' and irreproducibility hints at context but lacks direct usage boundaries.

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and not destructive, so the description does not need to repeat these. However, it adds value by detailing the exact data returned (top-10 services, full records, audit profiles, incidents), providing behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information ('FREE sample of the PulseFeed Data API') and efficiently lists the contents without waste. Every phrase 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description provides adequate context about the returned data. However, it does not clarify whether the sample is static or if the 'top-10' may change over time (openWorldHint indicates variability but is not explained). 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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 when no parameters exist. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 provides a free sample of the PulseFeed Data API, listing specific contents (top-10 x402 services as full records, MCP servers, and incidents). The verb 'provides' is implied, and the resource and scope are well-defined, distinguishing it from siblings like x402_working_services and x402_incidents by being a sample.

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 is for obtaining a free sample, likely for preview or evaluation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings such as x402_ecosystem_stats or x402_working_services. No alternatives or exclusion criteria 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context like 'Live' and 'Free', which aligns with openWorldHint but does not significantly extend behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations. It is not contradictory.

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 it packs multiple metric categories (counts, audit, distribution, profiles) efficiently. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slight overloading of information could be broken into a list, but it remains 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description lists the key return data points (tracked counts, audit results, scam risk, receiver profiles, free). It covers the essential output information, though it omits details on output format or granularity. The mention 'Free' adds operational context.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it provides sufficient context that the tool requires no configuration. Baseline for zero parameters with high coverage is 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 specifies the tool's function: providing live health stats of the x402 ecosystem with concrete metrics like tracked/alive/dead counts, catalog-accuracy audit, scam-risk distribution, receiver-stability, and on-chain profiles. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing a broad ecosystem overview, unlike targeted 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 implies usage for an overall health check ('Live health of the whole x402 agent-payment ecosystem'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_x402_endpoint or x402_leaderboard. No exclusions or 'when not to use' 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 read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that incidents are from a 'continuous independent audit' and include 'on-chain proof URLs', which is significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. 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 and efficiently conveys the tool's value. The first sentence is long but packed with critical information, and the second is a concise call to action. No filler or redundancy. Slightly more structure could improve readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core functionality and the key output detail (on-chain proof URL). It doesn't explain return format or pagination, but for a simple read-only tool, this is sufficient.

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 covers the single parameter 'days' completely (100% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter, but the schema's description is adequate. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter insight.

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 lists the types of security incidents (receiver hijacks, bait-and-switch, etc.) and emphasizes the on-chain proof URL, making the tool's purpose very clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on live incidents with proofs, rather than endpoint checking or ecosystem stats.

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 'Check before paying anything' directly advises when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, the context and sibling list imply its role in pre-payment verification. Slightly more explicit guidance would improve 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=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?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about listing only alive services and including trust scores and risk map. 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, front-loading the purpose and key features, with no wasted words. Every sentence 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?

The description adequately explains what the tool returns (list of alive services, trust score ranking, risk map). Given no output schema, this covers essential output expectations, though more detail on structure could be added.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description does not need to explain parameters, and baseline for 0 params is 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 the tool lists alive x402 agent-payment services that return a valid challenge, ranked by PulseFeed Trust Score, plus an ecosystem risk map. This is specific and distinct from siblings like check_x402_endpoint.

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 recommends using this tool to select a trustworthy service instead of paying a dead or scam endpoint, which provides clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the sibling context implies differentiation.

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