x402 Cartographer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: this call is free while the tools it describes are paid, implying a zero-cost read. It says nothing about whether results are cached, how fresh the reported "data freshness" is, or whether the call can fail.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the cost signal is front-loaded. The colon-fragment phrasing ("Free: price, network and data freshness") is compact but slightly telegraphic, costing a bit of readability.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate three return categories. But "network" is undefined and the structure of the response (one record per tool? a summary?) is unclear, leaving the agent guessing about the result 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is an empty object at 100% coverage. Baseline of 4 applies, with no gap to compensate for.

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 three things returned (price, network, data freshness) and scopes them to "this server's paid tools," which differentiates it from the endpoint/actor discovery siblings. However, there is no clear verb — it reads as a fragment prefixed with "Free:" rather than stating "report server status" — so the agent must infer the operation.

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 indication of when to call this versus find_apify_actors, find_x402_endpoints, or x402_endpoint_card, and no prerequisites or follow-up guidance. The word "Free" hints that cost-conscious agents should call it before paid tools, but that inference is left entirely to the reader.

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 load and does well: it discloses the ranking factors (text match, 30-day users, run success rate), the result cap of 10, the per-event price and x402 run URL in results, and the billing behavior on empty matches. It omits auth/credential requirements and whether repeated calls are rate limited.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return shape, then the cost caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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, and the description compensates by describing the result contents (ranked actors, per-event price, x402 run URL) and the empty-match behavior. With no annotations, the remaining gap is the permission/auth model and any rate limits, which an agent might want before calling.

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 loosely corroborates limit ('up to 10'), max_price_usd ('per-event price') and x402_only ('x402 run URL'), but adds no semantics beyond what the schema fields already state.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Picks Apify Store actors' for a scraping/automation task, with two concrete example needs ('instagram posts', 'google maps places'). It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling find_x402_endpoints, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with given the x402 mentions.

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?

Usage is implied by the example task phrasings, and the 'x402 run URL' / 'not charged when nothing matches' details hint at the purchase flow. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus find_x402_endpoints or x402_endpoint_card, and no stated prerequisites.

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 and does disclose real behavioral traits: result cap of 10, ranking signals (text match, 7-day liveness probes, on-chain USDC payer counts), and the billing quirk that no charge occurs on an empty match. What it does not say is whether returned endpoints are paid or whether calling them costs money, which is a notable omission for a tool whose outputs are paid services.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by return shape and then the cost caveat. No filler and every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, so the description does the work of describing the return set (up to 10 ranked endpoints) and the signals behind the ranking, plus the billing exception. It stops short of describing the fields on each endpoint record, which an agent would want before deciding to trust the results.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the 1-10 limit range and max_price_usd meaning. The description only restates the 10-result ceiling and adds no syntax or formatting guidance for need, network, or price 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?

States a specific verb (ranks) and resource (live x402 endpoints) plus the ranking inputs, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling find_apify_actors, which is a similarly shaped discovery tool, so a 4 rather than 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 examples ('web search', 'token price', 'pdf to text') imply the kind of plain-language need to supply, which is useful context. There is no statement of when to prefer this over find_apify_actors or x402_endpoint_card, and no prerequisites, so usage 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 the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: data provenance ('our probes'), the 7-day uptime and 30-day payer windows, and the billing rule for unknown URLs. It omits what happens on an unknown URL (empty card vs. error), whether a charge applies to known URLs, and any freshness/rate-limit behavior for the card 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?

Two tight sentences: the resource and returned fields come first, the billing caveat last. Every clause carries information an agent can act on; nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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, and the description does the necessary work of naming the returned metrics so the agent knows what it gets back. The remaining gap is failure/unknown-URL semantics, which matters for a lookup keyed on an arbitrary URL.

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 single 'url' param is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by constraining it semantically to an x402 endpoint URL, but says nothing about expected format (scheme, path, query) beyond the schema's 8-2048 length bounds.

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?

States a specific resource ('Trust card for one x402 endpoint URL') and enumerates the fields it returns: uptime, latency, last success, price, payer count. The singular 'one endpoint URL' implicitly contrasts with the sibling find_x402_endpoints, but it never names it explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — look up reputation for a known endpoint before transacting — and the billing caveat 'Not charged for unknown URLs' hints at a pre-check workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as find_x402_endpoints for discovery.

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