x402-solana

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the $0.10 per-call price, x402 payment method, and Base mainnet USDC, and clearly implies a read-only monitoring operation through 'check', 'pulse', and 'where do I rank now'. It does not detail rate limits or authentication, but for a low-cost read-like check the key traits are covered.

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 core purpose and output, and the subsequent sentences add useful usage and pricing context. The rhetorical questions ('Where do I rank now? Am I being out-ranked?') add a slightly promotional tone but do not waste significant space; overall it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 lacking an output schema and annotations, the description explains the output composition (best rank + per-category-keyword rank) and the fallback to the visibility audit. For a single-parameter read-only check, this is largely complete; minor gaps remain on exact response format or rank definition, but the description covers the essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'seller' parameter, which already documents wallet or origin URL/domain formats. The description adds context about the seller being an x402 seller in CDP Bazaar, but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond the schema; hence baseline 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 a specific action: checking an x402 seller's current keyword-relevance rank in CDP Bazaar discovery. It distinguishes this from raw settled-volume rank shown by free explorers and from the sibling tool 'agent_visibility_audit', making its unique purpose evident.

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 frames this as a frequent pulse/cheap monitoring call, and explicitly points to the full '/agent/visibility-audit' when rank slips, naming the alternative. It also contrasts with free volume-rank explorers, providing clear when-to-use vs when-not-to 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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it is a paid call ($1.00, x402, USDC on Base), returns multiple components (rank, metadata quality score, settle activity, fixes, delta), uses Ed25519 signing, and explains the snapshot mechanism. It does not cover error handling (e.g., seller not found) or rate limits, but for a read-only audit tool, the transparency is above average.

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 dense, single paragraph with multiple clauses, parentheticals, and a final question. It packs valuable information but lacks clear structure and is somewhat verbose. It could be split into shorter sentences for easier parsing. Every sentence earns its place, but the overall conciseness is average.

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 annotations, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns: keyword-RELEVANCE rank, metadata-quality score, settle activity, top-3 benchmark, prioritized fixes, and delta. It also includes cost, signing, and the audit's focus. It omits explicit error handling or response format specifics, but for an audit tool, the description is fairly 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context by explaining that the 'snapshot' parameter is a signed snapshot from a previous audit used to compute a delta, but this is largely reinforced by the schema description. Thus, the description adds little 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 the tool's purpose: an audit of x402 agent/seller discoverability across agent registries (CDP Bazaar, 402index). It uses a specific verb ('Audit') and specifies the resource and scope, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling agent_rank_check by emphasizing 'keyword-RELEVANCE rank per category (not raw settled-volume rank)' and the inclusion of a delta vs a signed snapshot.

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: use this when you want to understand why you're not being found and how to improve visibility, as opposed to a simple rank check. It highlights the 'Why am I not being found and how do I climb?' use case and contrasts its ranking methodology with raw volume ranking, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 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?

No annotations provided, so description carries the full burden. Discloses fusion of token safety, wallet sanctions, and market signal; mentions signed, offline-verifiable receipt; and provides cost/payment details. Does not describe potential failure modes or whether underlying data is returned.

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?

Dense with useful information in under 60 words. Front-loaded with core purpose and includes cost, scope, and alternatives without any filler.

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 covers purpose, scope, cost, and receipt. It lacks explicit return structure, but an agent understands it will receive a verdict and receipt. Could benefit from describing how to verify the receipt or response format.

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 baseline is 3. Description aligns with schema (e.g., wallet for sanctions screening) but adds no additional meaning 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?

Clear verb+resource: provides a GO/CAUTION/NO-GO pre-trade verdict. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating it replaces token-safety, wallet-screen, and signal calls. Scope (EVM chains and Solana) adds clarity.

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?

States 'Replaces three separate calls...' which clearly indicates when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Includes the user's decision question 'Should I buy this token now?' and chain scope. Lacks explicit exclusions or 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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the report contents, supported chains (EVM + Solana), and the per-call price/payment method (x402, USDC on Base). It does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or explicitly state read-only behavior, but the 'report' framing makes the safe-read nature clear enough.

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 value proposition and uses a dense, scannable list of features. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's breadth. Slight overuse of slang ('degen', 'aping') is a minor style issue but not a clarity problem.

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 fills the gap by enumerating all major output categories and providing usage context, supported chains, and pricing. It gives an agent enough information to select and invoke the tool appropriately, though it stops short of specifying exact response structure or error behavior.

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 fully documents the two parameters (token and chain). The description adds only general context about chains and token formats but no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 opens with 'Full degen token dossier in one call' and enumerates specific deliverable components (safety score, honeypot/tax, top holders, liquidity/FDV/volume, contract control, AI red-flag narrative). This makes the tool's purpose concrete and clearly distinguishes it from simpler alternatives like a plain safety check.

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 positions this as 'the premium tier above a plain safety check' and states it is for deep due diligence 'before aping,' giving clear context for when to use it over simpler tools. It does not name sibling tools explicitly or mention exclusions, which prevents a 5.

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 discloses external data sources (GoPlus, Honeypot.is, DexScreener), EVM chain support, payment method (x402, USDC on Base), and cost ($0.05). It also describes the return format (score + buy/avoid verdict). It lacks details on failure modes or edge cases, but is otherwise transparent.

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 moderately concise and well-structured, with front-loaded purpose followed by components, usage benefit, chain restriction, and cost. Every sentence contributes value, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 complexity (aggregating multiple services) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return value, pricing, and chain support. It does not detail error handling or scoring methodology, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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%, with both parameters described. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond restating 'EVM chains', which is already covered by the chain enum. Thus it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 as a token safety check for honeypots and rug pulls, listing specific checks and a 0-100 risk score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'EVM chains', which excludes Solana tools, and by emphasizing it's a single-call aggregation replacing three lookups.

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 provides clear usage context: 'before buying' and 'one call replaces three lookups' implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explain when not to use this tool, though the EVM chain restriction partially covers that.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output fields, real-time nature, worldwide coverage, and pricing/payment details ($0.01 per call via x402). It does not mention failure modes or status codes, but for a lookup tool the disclosed context is substantial.

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-loaded with purpose, then returns and pricing. Every clause adds value—no filler 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the key return fields (legal name, status, jurisdiction, legal form, registered address) and adds real-time/coverage/price context. For a single-parameter lookup, this is sufficient for an agent to understand expected behavior.

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% with the 'lei' parameter already described (20-character format and example). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level nuance beyond restating that it looks up an LEI, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 verb ('Look up') and the specific resource ('Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)') against the official GLEIF registry. It lists the returned fields (legal name, status, jurisdiction, etc.) and explicitly positions it for KYB/company lookup, which distinguishes it from siblings focused on crypto/trading/sanctions.

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 a clear context for use: 'for company information lookup and counterparty / know-your-business (KYB) identity.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are thematically different, making the intended use unambiguous.

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 honestly discloses the pricing model and payment method ($0.05 per call, x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet), and clarifies that data is live. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the payment disclosure is a significant behavioral trait beyond the schema.

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-loaded with the core purpose and ending with actionable pricing/payment info. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 parameter, no output schema), and the description covers input requirements, output contents, and cost. It lacks a detailed output structure or error-handling info, but for a lightweight data-retrieval tool the description 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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'market' parameter, including examples. The description essentially restates 'give a market id or slug' without adding further syntax or format details, so it does not go 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 states a specific verb+resource: get live prediction market data from Polymarket. It clearly lists the output components (probability, volume, liquidity, resolution status) and distinguishes this tool from the crypto/sanctions-focused siblings by naming the unique data source.

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 clear context on what to supply (market id or slug) and what to expect in return. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools offer comparable Polymarket data, so the usage context is sufficient.

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a similarity score and context rather than a binary answer, and it notes a $0.05 per-call fee and payment method. This goes beyond the tool name, though it does not detail authentication or rate 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds output and cost details—no filler or repetition.

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 covers purpose, output nature, and cost, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It lacks explicit return formatting details, but since there is no output schema, the description gives a reasonable expectation of what the response contains.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details 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 states the tool screens a name against the official EU consolidated sanctions list (FISMA) for AML/watchlist checks, using a specific verb ('screen') and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on agent ranks, crypto tokens, and Solana 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 implies use for AML and watchlist screening but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives. It provides context ('anti-money-laundering and watchlist checks') but no exclusions or comparison with sibling 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 transparency burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 per call with x402 payment) and the modules involved, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or that no on-chain transaction occurs. It provides some behavioral context but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 repetitive, restating 'in ONE call' and 'buy/avoid' multiple times. It is longer than necessary and contains marketing-style phrasing that could be condensed without losing meaning.

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 simple input (one param), the description is fairly complete: it explains the modules, the verdict categories, the target use case, and the cost. It does not detail the output structure, but the absence of an output schema makes the description's mention of the verdict categories adequate.

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% coverage for the mint parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the tool evaluates a Solana token, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or examples beyond what the schema already documents.

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: an all-in-one Solana pre-trade decision tool that outputs BUY-SAFE/CAUTION/AVOID verdicts by fusing four scored modules. It explicitly positions itself against sibling tools by claiming to replace 3-4 lookups and being built for trading/sniping risk-review.

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 clear usage context: it is for pre-trade decisions and suitable for a trading/sniping agent's risk-review pipeline. It implies when to use (before buying a Solana token) and argues it replaces multiple lookups, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or edge cases where it should not be used.

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 discloses the verdict scale (SAFE/RISKY/CRITICAL), the 0-100 score, the combination of STATIC and BEHAVIORAL checks, the blue-chip false-positive guard, and even the pricing and payment method ($0.01 per call, x402, USDC on Base mainnet). It does not explicitly state it's a read-only operation, but the nature of a safety check implies non-destructive behavior. This is a high level of 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 front-loaded with the purpose but contains redundancy: 'rug check and honeypot / scam detection' is repeated as 'scam-token detection', and 'before trading' is repeated as 'Pre-trade'. The pricing and payment sentence is useful but could be separated or abbreviated. It's not a model of conciseness, though it remains readable and informative.

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 explains the main output (verdict SAFE/RISKY/CRITICAL + 0-100 score) and analysis methodology. It also covers pricing and the false-positive guard. It does not detail return fields, error cases, or prerequisites like RPC endpoints, but for an agent deciding to invoke this tool with a mint address, it provides enough context to select and call correctly. The absence of an explicit read-only statement 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; the mint example 'EPjFW...Dt1v' (USDC) is already in the schema description. The 'deep' parameter's meaning (more RPC calls) is explained in the schema, and while the description's emphasis on behavioral analysis aligns, it does not add new information. The schema already carries the burden.

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: 'Solana SPL token safety, rug check and honeypot / scam detection before trading' and later 'Pre-trade SPL token security / scam-token detection'. It names a specific verb (safety check, rug check) and resource (Solana SPL token), and distinguishes it from siblings like solana_pre_trade by focusing on rug/honeypot and behavioral detection.

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 clear context: 'before trading' and 'Pre-trade' indicate when to use it. It also mentions that it catches 'behavioral rugs static checkers miss', implying it complements static analysis alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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