pathmint

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

No annotations, so the description must carry behavioral burden. It discloses cost ('Two cents'), output statuses, and what is compared, but omits whether the call is read-only, auth requirements, or failure behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the trigger ('BEFORE YOU PAY') and uses short, dense clauses with no filler. Some fragments ('Two cents.') are extremely terse but functional.

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

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

For a paid pre-payment check with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the core comparison and status codes but leaves the meaning of each status and auth/payment mechanics unexplained. Adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 single url parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the check performed: compares bazaar listed price against live 402 price and verifies payee wallet singularity, returning defined statuses. It differentiates from the live/dead ping sibling, though the jargon 'bazaar price' and 'one wallet' assumes domain knowledge.

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?

Explicitly says to use before paying a listed x402 URL, and names the alternative ('the one-cent live/dead ping') it is not. It does not address other siblings like x402_pay_clearance, but the core when-to-use is clear.

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 exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose cost ('Two cents'), the three output verdicts, and that it returns no Messari payload, which is useful. It is silent on auth requirements, failure modes, or whether the paid URL is minted or just validated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded trigger ('BEFORE YOU PAY Messari'), then the three outcomes and a scope caveat. Every clause carries information; the density and capitalization style are aggressive but not wasteful.

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

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must supply the return semantics, and it does by naming the three verdicts and what each means. Cost and scope are covered. Only permissions/error behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a 2-param gate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented ('job or question you were about to pay Messari for' and 'Optional 402 URL you were about to pay'). The description adds no format, syntax, or relationship guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve a gating decision (SKIP_MESSARI / PAY_MESSARI / ABORT) before paying Messari, and explicitly scopes out siblings by saying 'Not Messari data.' The three return codes make the tool's job concrete, though the telegraphic phrasing takes a read to parse.

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?

'BEFORE YOU PAY Messari' establishes the trigger clearly, and the SKIP_MESSARI branch names cheaper alternatives (Pathmint/Signals). However, it never contrasts itself with its actual siblings (e.g., x402_pay_clearance or ping_x402_before_pay), so the agent must infer which pre-pay gate to pick.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the cost ('One cent'), which is real value the schema does not carry, and implies a non-destructive liveness probe. However, it says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or what a failed/dead result implies for proceeding with payment.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The 'BEFORE YOU PAY' front-loading is effective, but the body is comma-spliced and keyword-stuffed, repeating the same before-you-pay idea three times ('Ghost x402, is this endpoint live, verify before pay'). It is short in word count yet wasteful, since the repetition adds no new 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain how to interpret the result (what 'live' vs 'ghost' means for the caller and what happens next). It hints at this but leaves the return semantics and the recommended action implicit, which is only marginally adequate for a pre-payment gate 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 both parameters (url, payTo) are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description loosely restates them ('the paid URL you are about to pay', 'payTo') without adding format, validation, or usage nuance 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 states a recognizable verb+resource: ping an x402 paid URL to determine whether the endpoint is live vs dead/ghost before payment. It is distinguishable from the before_pay siblings by being specifically about liveness of an x402 resource. The sentence is grammatically fragmented ('get the paid URL to ping live vs dead/ghost'), which keeps it short of a clean 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete trigger: 'Use when holding Payment-Required, before sending USDC to a payTo.' That is clear timing context and matches the schema's 'url you are about to pay'. It does not name or exclude any alternative sibling (e.g., x402_pay_clearance, listing_check_before_pay), so it stops short of 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only risk check but does not state whether it is read-only, what external calls or rate limits exist, or what the response looks like. The lone behavioral clue is the word 'check' and the exclusion of 'ghost ping.'

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the exclusion. Every phrase earns its place by either stating the action or routing away from a sibling.

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 2-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it does and when to use it, but omits return-value behavior and any safety/rate-limit context. It is minimally adequate but leaves important behavioral gaps for an agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (chain and address), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific check ('honeypot / token-risk check') for ERC20 buying/approving, which distinguishes it from the x402-related siblings by explicitly saying 'Not an x402 ghost ping.' However, it does not distinguish itself from listing_check_before_pay or messari_gate_before_pay, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 gives clear usage context ('Before buying or approving an ERC20') and an exclusion ('Not an x402 ghost ping'), which helps the agent avoid the wrong sibling. It stops short of naming the correct alternative tool for the excluded use case, so it is not fully prescriptive.

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 usefully discloses the threshold, the verdict categories (CLEAR / CAUTION / ABORT), and risk dimensions (ghost, wrong rail, overcharge), but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what auth/rate-limit constraints apply.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words; the threshold condition and the sibling distinction are front-loaded before the optional parenthetical detail.

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

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

For a two-parameter payment-clearance tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description names the possible verdicts but does not explain their operational meaning or how they should affect the payment decision. It is minimally adequate but leaves important interpretive gaps.

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 adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by tying amountUsd to a $0.50 minimum and explaining that payTo comes from the 402 response.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (compile a payment clearance verdict) for a specific resource (payTo from an x402 402) and explicitly scopes it to USDC payments of $0.50 or more. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ping tool with 'Not the one-cent ping.'

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?

Gives a clear use condition ('Before sending USDC ≥ $0.50 on an x402 402') and an implied exclusion for one-cent payments. However, it does not name the exact sibling alternative or clarify when other pre-payment checks in the suite should be used instead.

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