x402-gateway

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

The description adds the cost per call, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention the response format, any rate limits, or what happens if the payment is omitted beyond what the schema description already covers. Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those, but more detail on the returned data would be helpful.

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 leads with the cost, immediately conveying the most important operational detail, followed by a clear purpose. No filler words; every element 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not describe what the search returns (e.g., list of agent metadata, addresses, etc.), which could leave an agent unsure of the output structure. Given the lack of an output schema, this is a notable 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'payment' already has a thorough description covering the x402 proof and the two-step call pattern. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 ('Search') and names a precise resource ('ERC-8004 registry') and target ('on-chain AI agents'). It clearly differentiates from generic tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like agent_research, so it stops short of a 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool's purpose is distinct, the description never states when it should be preferred or excluded. The sibling list includes agent_research, which might overlap, but no comparison is made.

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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the local LLM nature and cost per call, which are useful but not critical behavioral traits. It does not contradict annotations and provides modest extra context, such as payment flow hints via the schema, but not in the description itself.

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, efficiently conveying cost and capability. However, the cost is front-loaded, which may not be the most important information for an agent, and the list of capabilities is a bit cluttered. Still, it is concise and well-structured overall.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at return values or response structure, but it does not. It also fails to explain the payment flow or what 'document creation' implies. The description is too generic for an agent to safely invoke and interpret results, especially given the optional payment parameter.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning. The schema descriptions are minimal ('Path parameter'), but the high coverage means the description is not required to compensate, though it also doesn't help clarify what values task/topic should take.

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 lists multiple vague capabilities (research, analysis, document creation, summarization) but does not state a clear, specific purpose. It avoids tautology but fails to distinguish from siblings like agent_discovery or market_intelligence. An agent cannot determine what concrete output this tool produces.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparative context. The pricing note is irrelevant to usage selection. The description leaves the agent to infer applicability.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the per-call cost and external engine identity, which is useful context for call decisions, but it does not clarify output shape or update cadence.

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 compact phrase with no wasted words. The cost qualifier is front-loaded, and the domain plus engine are stated 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 tool with only one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description provides enough context to select and call it. The lack of an output schema means return-format details are missing, but the narrow scope makes this a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single optional payment parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description mentions cost but does not add further meaning to the payment parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the resource (game deals), the actions (tracking, price-watch, release radar), and the underlying engine (CheapShark), which distinguishes it from NFT, token, and wallet-focused siblings. It lacks an explicit verb but is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's domain.

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 clear use-case context: game deal tracking, price-watching, and release radar. It implies when to use this tool versus finance/NFT/research siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the cost disclosure ('$0.02 USD per call') and the data source (DexScreener), which are useful beyond the annotations. 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 a single sentence with zero filler. The cost is front-loaded, which is important for a paid API, and the core function is stated immediately. Very concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must hint at what is returned. It says 'analysis with efficiency scoring', which implies some output, but lacks detail on metrics or format. The payment flow is fully explained in the parameter description. Given the simplicity and the annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate – the description is adequate but leaves the output format unspecified.

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 context that the tool is for LP pools, implying the 'address' parameter refers to an LP pool address, but this is not explicit. The 'payment' parameter is well described in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value but does not fully clarify the address semantics.

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 action: 'DeFi LP pool analysis with efficiency scoring via DexScreener'. It clearly identifies the resource (LP pools) and the type of output (efficiency scoring), and names the data source. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings, though it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'list'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where another tool would be preferable, and no exclusions. The only usage hint is the payment flow, which is about how to call, not when.

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 readOnly/openWorld/idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: a per-call cost of $0.005 and that prices are live-RPC sourced. However, it does not disclose the two-step payment requirement (call without proof, then retry), which is a significant behavioral trait left entirely to the parameter schema.

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?

One tightly scoped sentence with no filler; the cost is front-loaded in brackets and the chain list is explicit. Every phrase adds 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?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only tool with a 100%-covered schema, the description plus schema contains what an agent needs: chains, cost, source, and the payment handshake. The absence of an output schema is not a gap since the dimension explicitly says it needn't explain return values. Minor missing context would be an explicit note that payment is required; however, that is fully specified in the parameter description.

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%: the single optional 'payment' parameter has a detailed description explaining the EIP-3009 proof and the call-once-then-retry flow. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable at the 100% coverage baseline.

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?

Description states the tool provides live gas prices for three specific chains, making the resource and scope clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get,' but the noun phrase 'Live gas prices' unambiguously signals a retrieval operation. None of the 14 sibling tools overlap with gas price data, so sibling differentiation is not required.

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 when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance is given; the description simply states the service. While it implies use when current gas prices are needed, it does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The payment flow is documented only in the schema, not as usage guidance.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the call is 'Free', the result is exhaustive ('every' service), and the response contents are enumerated. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but those are not strongly needed for a simple listing 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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. 'Free' and 'Call this first' are immediately useful, and every clause contributes either scope, output format, or usage guidance.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema catalog tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed, what fields are returned, the cost, and when to call. There are no missing details that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('every paid x402 service this gateway sells'), and the exact output fields (name, description, price in USD, HTTP method, live path). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on analytics, routing, or research rather than catalog discovery.

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?

'Call this first to discover what can be bought here' gives explicit when-to-use guidance and positions the tool as the discovery entry point. It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but for a zero-parameter catalog tool the primary usage context 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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for added value is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the $0.02 USD per-call cost, the external DataHub dependency, the asset classification taxonomy (charts/dashboards/pipelines), and the three-verdict output scheme. 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the cost is front-loaded (important for an agent deciding whether to spend), followed by the value question, then the mechanism. Every clause earns its place, and the question format is an efficient scaffold for the agent's intent.

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 names the output verdicts (BLOCK/REVIEW/SAFE) and the classification categories (charts/dashboards/pipelines), which gives a usable picture of the return despite no output schema. The payment two-step flow lives in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. Minor gap: the exact response structure beyond verdict types is unspecified, but annotations plus schema cover the remaining operational needs.

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, but the datasetUrn schema description ('Path parameter datasetUrn') is tautological and adds no meaning. The description compensates by establishing that datasetUrn is the table under consideration in DataHub lineage, which gives real semantic weight. The payment parameter is already well-documented in the schema with the two-step retry flow.

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 ('Walks'), a specific resource (DataHub downstream lineage), and a concrete outcome (BLOCK/REVIEW/SAFE verdict). The quoted question 'what breaks if I drop/change this table?' crisply frames the use case. None of the sibling tools (deal_tracker, token_security, wallet_analysis, etc.) do data lineage, so it is clearly distinguished.

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 embeds a clear trigger condition via the question 'what breaks if I drop/change this table?' and the blast-radius framing tells an agent exactly when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool overlaps with lineage analysis, so explicit routing is unnecessary.

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 signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add operational context. It adds a per-call cost and a 'real-time' freshness qualifier, which are useful. It does not disclose rate limits, data sources, response size, or other behavioral caveats.

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 compact phrase with the cost information front-loaded. It avoids restating the tool name or title, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for a simple one-required-parameter lookup tool.

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 one required parameter, the worked example in the schema, and strong read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is adequate for placing a first call. The main gap is the lack of an output schema and no detail about what the returned 'price data' actually contains, such as current price, OHLC, or market cap.

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 schema already provides a worked example ('ETH') and a detailed explanation of the payment authorization flow. The description adds the 'crypto' context, clarifying that 'symbol' refers to a cryptocurrency symbol, but it does not materially enrich parameter semantics beyond 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 identifies a concrete resource — real-time crypto market price data — so an agent can tell this is a price-lookup tool rather than a generic analytics service. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', and it does not differentiate from siblings such as defi_lp_analytics or token_security, which keeps it below a 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?

The intended use case is implied: call this tool when real-time crypto market price data is needed. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools, no exclusionary cases, and no mention of the payment preflight flow as a usage step.

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 communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a hard constraint, the $0.01 USD per-call cost, and the Magic Eden dependency, which an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 entire guidance is one front-loaded sentence with the cost and the action. No wasted words and no repetition of schema 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?

For a one-parameter tool with annotations and a documented payment parameter, the description is adequate, but it does not describe what the search returns or any result limitations. The agent can select the tool confidently, though the absence of output information leaves a mild gap in invocation expectations.

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 the payment-proof parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, and at 100% coverage it does not need to.

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 clear verb and resource: it searches NFT collections, and narrows scope with 'across Solana via Magic Eden.' It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as market_intelligence or providers, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but the scope 'across Solana via Magic Eden' implies the intended context for selecting this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the cost per call ($0.005), which is valuable behavioral context not present in annotations. It doesn't contradict the annotations and provides additional transparency about the financial implication.

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, front-loaded sentence that includes the cost, the action, and the resource. There is zero wasted verbiage, and the most critical information (cost) appears first. This is an ideal example of concise, efficient tool documentation.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and cost. It doesn't mention the return format or potential pagination, but given the tool's trivial nature and the read-only, idempotent annotations, these are not critical gaps. The payment parameter workflow is documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it 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 description coverage is 100%, with the single optional 'payment' parameter fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters; it only mentions the cost, which is not parameter-related. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('registered model providers in the Sovereign Router pool'), which is specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource name is distinct enough that an agent would not confuse it with the other listed tools like 'route' or '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?

The description implies usage (to list providers) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

The description explicitly mentions x402 settlement and a $0.05 per-call cost, and the parameter description instructs the caller to retry with a payment proof. This implies a financial side effect, which contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 one compact sentence with the cost and core routing behavior front-loaded. The parenthetical 'MSS v2 Sovereign Router' adds some product specificity but is not fully explained, so it is not perfectly efficient.

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 and parameter note explain the payment flow but do not clarify what request is being routed, what a successful call returns, or how the tool selects among registered providers. Without an output schema, these gaps make the actual invocation semantics underspecified.

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%, and the single payment parameter already has a rich description explaining EIP-3009 and the two-step payment flow. The main description adds little beyond the schema's own parameter semantics.

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 concrete action, 'Route across registered model providers,' and references the x402 settlement protocol, which gives a clear sense of what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate route from sibling tools like providers, and the 'MSS v2 Sovereign Router' phrase is unexplained jargon, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its alternatives, such as providers or score. The payment-parameter description explains a retry flow, but that is procedural rather than a when-to-use-vs-sibling comparison.

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?

The annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by disclosing the $0.02 per-call cost and the specific MSS v2 scoring methodology. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 concise sentence with the cost front-loaded, followed by the action and expected output range. It contains no filler, tautology, or redundant schema content.

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 says the tool scores 'any model profile,' but the input schema only accepts an optional payment parameter, making it unclear how the model profile is selected or provided. There is no output schema, and the response payload beyond the 0-850 score is not described. The two-step payment flow appears only in the parameter description, leaving important operational detail out of the main description.

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 only parameter, payment, is fully documented in the input schema, including the two-step flow of calling once without it to receive requirements and retrying with the proof. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much parameter-level detail.

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 action ('score any model profile') and what is returned: an MSS v2 model strength + sovereignty score in a 0-850 range. This is specific enough to separate it from the listed sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating alternative.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like agent_discovery or agent_research. The phrase 'score any model profile' implies a broad use case but provides no selection criteria, exclusions, or context about when this scoring is appropriate.

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 mark the tool readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the per-call cost, the Solana-only constraint, and the specific 400 invalid_mint rejection for EVM addresses. It does not contradict the 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, front-loads the cost and core purpose, and packs the chain restriction, error behavior, and alternative tool into one additional sentence. Every clause 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 paid read-only analysis tool without an output schema, the description covers the key output factors, chain restriction, error case, and alternative tool. The payment workflow is documented in the input schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100% of parameters and documents the payment proof workflow. The description adds meaningful semantics for the address parameter by clarifying it must be a Solana address and that EVM addresses are rejected, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Path parameter address'.

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 function (Solana token risk scoring and rugcheck analysis) and lists 11 concrete factors. It explicitly differentiates this tool from treasury_defender for EVM tokens, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings at a glance.

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 'SOLANA ONLY' and explains the failure mode for EVM addresses. It also names the exact alternative, treasury_defender, for EVM token risk, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful operational details: the $0.01 per call cost, the payment proof handshake, and SUSPICIOUS criteria such as homoglyph impersonation and no liquidity. However, 'quarantine flagged tokens' is ambiguous and could be read as a state-changing action despite the read-only annotation, so the description could be clearer about whether quarantine is a classification or a returned calldata result.

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 at two sentences and front-loads the cost and primary purpose. The feature list is dense but readable. The closing 'Protect your wallet from scam airdrops' is somewhat redundant with the opening 'Airdrop & dust-token defense,' so it is not maximally efficient.

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 3-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers the core use case, cost, and payment flow. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return shape or clarify the 'quarantine' behavior. An agent could likely invoke it correctly, but it might not know exactly what response to expect or how to interpret the result.

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%, and the schema documents the optional payment proof and retry flow, which supports the baseline of 3. The prose description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'classify any token,' and the schema's 'Path parameter' descriptions are thin, but the high coverage keeps this dimension at an acceptable level.

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's actions: classify tokens as KNOWN/SUSPICIOUS, quarantine flagged tokens, and get safe burn calldata, all framed as 'Airdrop & dust-token defense.' This is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like token_security or wallet_analysis, so it stops short of a perfect 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?

The description gives a clear context: 'Protect your wallet from scam airdrops' and lists the relevant features. It implies when an agent would use it, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like token_security and wallet_analysis occupy adjacent territory, so explicit routing guidance is missing.

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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by disclosing the $0.02 per-call cost and summarizing the returned data (token balances and USD valuation). It does not contradict the 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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The cost is front-loaded in brackets, followed immediately by the tool's purpose and output, making it easy to scan and process.

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 rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete: it states cost, purpose, and high-level output. Since there is no output schema, it would benefit from slightly more detail about the response shape or the specific wallet address expected, but the gaps are minor.

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%, and the schema already documents the address path parameter and the optional x402 payment proof flow. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 that this tool performs wallet portfolio analysis and returns token balances with USD valuation. It names a specific resource type (wallet) and expected output, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like defi_lp_analytics or treasury_defender.

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. The description implies use for wallet-level portfolio analysis, but it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate for related tasks.

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