merona — x402 settlement index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'FREE' and 'latest', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the key selling points (FREE, latest) and includes specific terminology (wash-adjusted, x402) without wasting words. Every word 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the sole source for interpreting the result. It states that figures are per chain, but does not specify the exact structure (e.g., object keys, array format). For a 0-param tool, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the response shape.

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 confirms this with 100% coverage. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add anything. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 resource as 'wash-adjusted clean x402 settlement figures' and the scope as 'per chain'. It also adds the context of being 'the numbers behind merona.io', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mismatch_feed and trust_score.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or name sibling tools. The only implied usage is that it provides settlement figures, but this is tautological rather than actionable advice.

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 must convey safety and behavior. It implies a read-only operation through 'summary' and 'FREE,' and specifies the data type returned. However, it does not disclose whether the data is cached, how fresh the 'as-of' dates are, or any potential delays, leaving moderate uncertainty.

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 the most salient information ('FREE') and then precisely enumerates the content of the feed. It is concise with no redundant or empty phrasing.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable outline of the return data: counts, as-of dates, and entries. It falls short of specifying the format (e.g., JSON or CSV) or whether the result is an array or single object, but for a parameterless summary tool this is 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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly avoids parameter details, matching the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 providing a summary of the nightly payTo mismatch feed, including counts, as-of dates, and catalog-vs-live entries. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on mismatch data, though it uses the noun 'summary' rather than a strong verb.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like payto_check or trust_score, nor does it state any prerequisites or limitations.

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 adds useful context that outputs are 'recorded facts with dates, not accusations' and that absence of a record is not clearance. However, it doesn't mention return format, error behavior, or any potential side effects, leaving gaps in expected 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the function and outputs; the second adds an essential interpretive caveat. No fluff 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the nature of results, and a critical caveat. It is reasonably complete for a selection and basic invocation, though specific return format details are absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does state that the 'query' parameter is a wallet address or endpoint URL, providing basic semantics. But it lacks format examples or constraints beyond the schema's maxLength, so the compensation is only partial.

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 'payTo-integrity lookup for a wallet address or endpoint URL' and specifies the outputs (catalog-vs-live mismatches, payout-rotation history, settlement presence). It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the resource and data 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over siblings like mismatch_feed or trust_score. The caveat about 'absence of a record is not a clearance' is about interpreting results, not about selecting the tool. There are no explicit when-to-use or 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the cost ($0.005/call), the two authentication methods, and the specific outputs (grade, components, wash flags, snapshot sha). It does not mention rate limits or error responses, but covers essential behaviors for a paid read-only scoring 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical cost warning, followed by dense, well-structured output details and auth instructions. Every clause adds information without redundant phrasing.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: cost, auth details, output components, and verification hash. It misses explicit parameter definitions for chain/address, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to decide whether and how to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains 'payment' and 'api_key' parameters, including required formatting for payment. However, 'chain' and 'address' are only implicitly tied to 'seller wallet' and lack explicit format or purpose details, leaving a gap for two of four 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 'wash-aware m.Score for a seller wallet' and specifies outputs (grade A-F, component breakdown, wash flags, snapshot sha). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on trust scoring, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate' or 'retrieve'.

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 for when to use the tool: to obtain a trust score for a seller wallet. It also explains the payment mechanism (per-call via x402 or api_key), which serves as usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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