x402watch

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns aggregate data using the same v2.0 algorithm as paid endpoints, includes a hint when address is provided, and is free. It does not mention destructive side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only aggregate query.

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 well-structured with a core statement followed by a bullet-like list of data points and a separate paragraph for the paid alternative. It is informative but slightly verbose; could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 an output schema, one optional parameter, and no conflicting siblings, the description is complete. It explains what data is returned, the algorithm version, and the distinction from the paid endpoint, covering all necessary 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 single optional parameter 'address' has a clear schema description. The description adds that when provided, the response includes a hint about the paid per-address endpoint, which enhances understanding 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 explicitly states the tool returns an aggregate wash-report dataset and lists specific metrics (30-day total active buyers, real-volume %, suspected_wash and self_test counts, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from the paid per-address endpoint, making purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: for per-address real-time wash analysis, use the paid POST endpoint; for aggregate wash-filtered data, use this free tool. It also states no payment required, directly informing when to use.

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 full burden. It discloses the free tier, no payment required, and that data is wash-filtered using a v2.0 algorithm. It does not mention rate limits or mutation, but the tool is a read-only listing.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, guidance, and cost/data quality. No waste, front-loaded with key info.

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 and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, usage, cost, and filtering algorithm. It is complete for a listing tool; could add detail on category hierarchy but not necessary.

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 schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Description adds no param info because none exist, but is not penalized.

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 'List' and resource 'all 33 x402 service categories' with detailed stats. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like x402_get_service (singular service) and x402_search_services (search).

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 understand the shape of the x402 ecosystem before drilling into specific services or wallets,' giving clear context for when to use it. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but implies it's an exploratory starting point.

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 bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns wash-filtered data using the same algorithm as paid endpoints and that it is free. This adds value beyond the 'get' operation, though it does not mention rate limits or authentication.

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 three sentences, front-loading the returned fields, then providing usage guidance, and finally noting free tier and data quality. Every sentence 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, its purpose, and behavioral context (wash-filtered, free). No obvious gaps remain for a single-service detail retrieval 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter (service_id). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description, meeting the baseline score of 3.

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 retrieves the full detail record for one x402 service, listing specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like x402_check_wash, x402_get_categories, x402_get_trends, and x402_search_services by focusing on a single service's details.

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 'Use this to evaluate a single service's traffic composition,' providing clear usage context. It also mentions free tier and no payment, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or specify when not to use.

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 full burden. It discloses refresh rate (every 5 minutes), free tier, and that data is wash-filtered using the v2.0 algorithm. No destructive behaviors, which is implicit for a read-only tool.

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 reasonably concise for the amount of information it conveys. It front-loads the main purpose and lists metrics efficiently, though some minor redundancy exists ('Free tier. No payment required.').

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 and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what data is returned, refresh interval, cost, and data quality (wash-filtered). It is highly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema provides no additional meaning. The description implicitly states no input is needed, 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 it retrieves a 'last-24-hour trends snapshot' with specific metrics (new services count, transactions, volume, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like x402_get_service and x402_get_categories by focusing on aggregated trends.

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 indicates this tool requires no parameters and is free, implying it's for general trend overview. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like x402_search_services, but the purpose 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?

Without annotations, description discloses that data is wash-filtered using a v2.0 algorithm like paid endpoints, and that it's free. Adds value beyond schema by explaining filtering behavior and payment model.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then additional details. No filler or redundant information. Efficiently communicates key 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?

Output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. Description covers search behavior, free tier, wash filtering. Lacks explicit mention of pagination or sorting (though schema covers it), and error handling details are absent, but overall sufficient for a search 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 provides detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage). Description only generically mentions filters without adding new semantic depth 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?

Clearly states it searches a large index of services with filters, returning a paginated list. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it finds services by topic, chain, or seller wallet, implying other tools have different scopes.

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 when to use: 'Use this to find services by topic, chain, or seller wallet.' Also notes free tier and no payment. Does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with siblings, but context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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