XGuard Universal Paid AI Agent + Secretless Gateway

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds 'Free; no setup' which provides extra context about cost and setup requirements not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose the output format, response behavior, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply, so only partial value is added.

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

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

The description is two short sentences with no redundant words. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Inspect executable outcomes, prices and examples'), and the additional note about being free and setup-free is concise and relevant. It earns its place efficiently.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits any detail about what the inspection returns (e.g., list vs. single object, format, or pagination). Given the sibling tools for execution and results, some guidance on the discover output would improve completeness. However, it is adequate for a minimal discovery 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object. With no parameters to describe, the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed. Nothing is left unexplained.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('executable outcomes, prices and examples'), which clearly indicates a discovery/inspection tool. It implies differentiation from siblings (execute and get_result) through the verb choice, but does not explicitly contrast them. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings xguard_execute or xguard_get_result. The phrase 'Free; no setup' hints at accessibility but does not address selection criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. Usage context is left to inference.

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 the annotations, the description reveals important behavior: paid outcomes require payment authorization, the signed quote must be preserved in extensions.xguard, no API keys are needed, and output is untrusted source content. The schema description adds that unknown jobs return repair guidance and that this is not a general-purpose language model. No contradiction 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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with purpose, then delivers payment mechanics, auth handling, constraints, and output trust in a few short sentences. There is no filler or repetition, and every sentence 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?

This is a complex tool with 20 optional parameters, nested objects, and multiple advertised workflows, yet the description does not explain how to combine parameters or which capability values map to the three use cases. It also does not position the siblings. The repair guidance is a partial mitigation, but an agent would still struggle to construct a correct first call.

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 schema description coverage around 5% across 20 parameters, the description needed to compensate heavily. It explains intent, params._meta['x402/payment'], and extensions.xguard, but leaves action, task, tool, command, operation, capability, sources, and most others unexplained, and does not map the advertised functions to specific 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 names concrete actions and resources: extract multi-page evidence, compare structured product offers, or merge feeds. It is clear what the tool does, though it bundles three capabilities under a generic 'execute' name and does not contrast with the siblings xguard_discover and xguard_get_result.

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 operational guidance: intent:'demo' is free, paid work requires an x402 PaymentRequired flow with a funded client, and retries must pass params._meta['x402/payment']. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose execute over the sibling tools or when not to use 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, and the description reinforces this with 'never charges or executes again.' It adds valuable context beyond the annotations by warning that the quote is a bearer recovery credential and should be kept private, which is important security-relevant 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the key safety behavior follows immediately, and the security warning earns its place.

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

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

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, non-execution safety, and credential sensitivity. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity keep this from being a major gap.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It maps 'payment identifier' to payment_identifier and 'original signed quote' to quote, adding meaningful semantics by describing the quote as a bearer recovery credential. It does not specify formats or expiration rules, but it provides useful meaning beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Recover a paid outcome using its payment identifier and original signed quote.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from execution by stating 'never charges or executes again,' making it easy for an agent to separate this from xguard_execute.

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: after a payment has been made and the paid outcome needs to be recovered. It also provides an implicit exclusion by saying it never charges or executes again, though it does not explicitly name xguard_execute or xguard_discover as alternatives.

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