trustdex-x402

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses cost ($5 one payment), duration (30-day), usage limit (5,000 calls), batch enabled, payment requirements (accepts array), and that the user is only charged when a result returns. Also notes no account/signup needed.

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, but every clause carries necessary information (payment, validity, limits, flow, billing). It could be slightly better structured with separate steps, but it is still concise for the complexity.

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 fully covers the purpose, cost, usage flow, and billing behavior. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 schema only says 'base64 X-PAYMENT payload'. The description adds rich meaning by explaining that x402_payment is used in the second call after receiving the accepts array, and how to obtain it. This goes well beyond the schema description.

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 mints a paid TrustDex Agent-plan API key with specific terms ($5, 30-day, 5,000 calls, batch enabled). The verb 'Mint' and resource 'API key' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like swap/pricing/risk.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step usage: first call without x402_payment to get payment requirements, then pay and call again with x402_payment. Note: no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are given, but this is a self-contained purchasing tool and the guidance 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?

With no annotations, the description indicates this is a read-only catalog by using 'price catalog' and 'FREE', but it does not explicitly state that invoking it has no side effects or that it returns a simple list. It adds useful context about settlement rails but stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 that front-loads 'FREE' and immediately defines the tool's purpose with a colon-separated explanation. No filler words or unnecessary details.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool offers. It could mention that it returns a list, but the phrase 'every paid resource' implies enumeration, making it complete enough.

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 empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds value by explaining what the returned catalog contains (paid resources, USD price, settlement rails), achieving the baseline for zero 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 identifies the tool as TrustDex's machine-payable price catalog, stating it covers 'every paid resource, its USD price and settlement rails.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling pricing tools like swap_evm_price by focusing on the x402 catalog, but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or specify scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 'price catalog' description.

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 fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the paid nature ($0.03/call), the two-step payment flow, the requirement for an x402_payment payload, and the condition that charges only happen when a result returns. This goes beyond a basic description and gives substantial behavioral context.

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-organized paragraph that front-loads the critical paid notice, then lists signal types, and finally explains the payment process. Every sentence adds necessary information—no fluff, and the structure logically flows from what to why to how.

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 the essential context: tool purpose, payment mechanics, and charge behavior. Since there is no output schema, it could have described return values more explicitly, but it does list the signal categories which partially addresses output expectations. The missing piece is a clear statement of what a successful result contains structurally, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 already describes both parameters (mint and x402_payment) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the workflow for x402_payment ('pay one of them with any x402 client/wallet, then call again') but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 the tool provides 'pre-graduation on-chain signals for a Solana mint' and enumerates specific signal types (bundled-launch detection, curve-aware holder concentration, Token-2022 traps, authority state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_token or token_risk_verdict by tying the purpose to a unique pre-graduation focus and payment model.

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 gives explicit step-by-step usage instructions: first call without x402_payment to get payment requirements, then pay and call again with the X-PAYMENT payload. It also notes the cost and that charges only occur when a result returns. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when to choose it over siblings, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' element.

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 paid nature ($0.01/call), the necessity of a x402 payment, the two-step call requirement, and that charges only occur when results are returned. This is significant behavioral context beyond what the schema provides, though it omits potential error cases 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 compact yet information-dense, starting with the most critical info (PAID) and then explaining the payment flow in a clear sequence. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return values; it says 'structured JSON' but doesn't detail fields. The payment flow is thoroughly explained, making the tool usable, given the simple list nature. A note about the return format being an array of alerts would have been more 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 schema covers 50% of parameters (x402_payment has a description, limit does not). The description elaborates on x402_payment, explaining it's a base64 X-PAYMENT payload and how to obtain it, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. This partial compensation leaves a gap for limit's purpose.

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 returns 'Recent TrustDex trend-radar alerts' and specifies their nature ('big dated movers with real market cap, structured JSON'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pregrad_signals or scan_token by naming the resource type.

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 detailed procedural guidance on the two-step payment flow (call without payment, then with payment), but does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings or state when to choose it over alternatives. The context implies it's for trend-radar alerts, but no direct exclusions or alternatives 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?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral aspects: it requires no authentication ('no signup'), has a rate limit ('fair use 100 checks/day per IP'), and is free. It also specifies the input format and output nature. However, it does not detail the structure of the risk read or how errors are handled, though these are not required for basic usage.

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 with 'FREE', but contains promotional language such as 'TrustDex' and a URL. All sentences contribute information about cost, input, limit, or output, so it is appropriately concise, though slightly repetitive with the schema.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides all essential details: what it does, input format, output type, usage limit, and authentication requirements. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already fully describes the token parameter with 100% coverage. The description repeats the same information ('token contract address (Solana mint or EVM address), or an exact token name/ticker') without adding new semantic details. Thus, the description adds no value 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 it is a 'token-safety scan' that accepts a token contract address or name/ticker and returns a 'structured risk read with concerning/legitimate on-chain signals'. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings by emphasizing 'FREE' and the specific input types.

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 free, quick token risk checks, mentioning 'FREE' and 'no payment, no signup', but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like token_risk_verdict or state when to prefer this over them. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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 disclosure responsibility. It discloses the paid nature ($0.002/call), the charging rule ('only charged when a result actually comes back'), and the two-step payment behavior with x402_payment. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or that it's read-only, but the term 'preview' suggests no mutation. The payment workflow transparency is strong.

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, each with a distinct purpose: cost, purpose, and usage workflow. It front-loads the paid warning and the core value proposition. No redundant or filler sentences—every word earns its place, making it dense yet readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It covers the key outputs ('expected and minimum output', 'accepts array') and the complete payment flow. Minor gaps include lack of error-scenario handling and details on the final result format, but for a price preview with a known payment ceremony, the description is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the x402_payment parameter's role in the two-step payment flow and how to interpret the 'accepts' array from the first response. This goes beyond the schema's dry 'base64 X-PAYMENT payload' definition, clarifying the exact usage sequence.

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 is an 'EVM swap price preview' that returns 'expected and minimum output' for a pair/amount, using a specific verb ('preview') and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool swap_evm_quote by framing it as the 'look-before-you-swap call' before committing to a firm quote.

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 usage context: it's the cheap preview call before a firm quote, and it explains the two-step workflow (call without x402_payment, pay, then call with it). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, though the 'before a firm quote' hint implies the distinction.

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 fully discloses critical behavioral traits: the paid nature ($0.01/call), the 3% platform fee priced into the transaction, non-custodial execution without keys/accounts, the conditional charging policy (only when a result returns), and the two-call payment requirement. This is thorough and goes beyond typical tool descriptions.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: cost, purpose, fee, payment flow, and charging policy are all critical. It is front-loaded with 'PAID' and structured logically, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (paid, two-step, fee, custody model) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential workflow and costs comprehensively. It does not detail the exact fields of the returned transaction object, but the overall execution flow and fee structure are clear enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all seven parameters, including taker ('will sign and broadcast') and x402_payment ('omit on the first call'). The description adds high-level context (fee, non-custodial) but does not significantly deepen the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: 'Executable EVM swap: a firm KyberSwap-routed quote plus a ready-to-sign transaction.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling swap_evm_price by emphasizing the executable, signed-transaction nature and the taker's own wallet, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 by explaining the required two-step payment flow: first call without x402_payment to receive an `accepts` array, then call again with the base64 X-PAYMENT payload. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, 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?

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: paid nature ($0.01/call), the two-step payment process, that charges only occur when a result returns, and the structure of the output. This is exemplary transparency, covering what would normally be expected from 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 dense but every sentence is necessary: payment warning, tool purpose, and invocation flow. It is front-loaded with the critical cost and usage note, and the remaining text is efficiently worded without 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 and annotations, the description is self-contained. It covers the tool's purpose, payment requirements, invocation sequence, output contents, and billing behavior. The agent has all necessary context to use the tool correctly and understand what to expect.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the x402_payment parameter's base64 payload format, its role in the two-step flow, and that it is omitted on the first call. This procedural context enriches the schema's minimal description.

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 TrustDex A+–F token safety verdict for a given chain and address, and lists the output components (grade, score, verdict prose, liquidity/holders/authority signals). This is a specific, actionable verb+resource that distinguishes it from generic token scan 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 gives explicit step-by-step usage instructions: call once without x402_payment to receive the accepts array, pay, then call again with the x402_payment payload. It also states the charging rule. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, only the procedural flow.

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 takes on full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the cost ($0.02/call), the charging policy ('only charged when a result actually comes back'), the two-phase behavior (returns an `accepts` array on the first call), and the nature of the output (dated crawl snapshot). This is rich, non-obvious context that an agent needs.

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?

Despite being a single dense paragraph, every sentence earns its place: cost, purpose, grading signals, snapshot timing, call sequence, payment instructions, and billing caveat. It is front-loaded with the most critical information ('PAID ($0.02/call). Vet... BEFORE paying it') and avoids fluff.

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, cost, output characteristics (A–F grade, dated snapshot), the two-step invocation protocol, and the billing condition. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further guesswork.

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 already defines both parameters with clear descriptions (resource URL/origin, base64 X-PAYMENT payload), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful protocol semantics: x402_payment is optional on the first call, required on the second, and must be set to the base64 payload. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'base64 X-PAYMENT payload' and clarifies the parameter's role in the workflow.

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 a clear verb ('Vet') and a specific resource ('an x402 seller BEFORE paying it'), then details the A–F grade based on observable signals. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_x402_pricing or buy_api_key, which address pricing or purchasing rather than pre-payment risk assessment.

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 usage context: use it before paying an x402 seller, and outlines the two-step call protocol (first without x402_payment, then with it). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the 'BEFORE paying' guidance and the detailed call sequence give clear, actionable instructions.

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