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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose a monetization detail (5 free trial calls per signed wallet) which hints at a paid/auth model, but says nothing about determinism, how ties are handled, error behavior, or response shape.

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?

It is short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The promotional trial-call line occupies half the text while the actual operation is left undefined.

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 computational statistics tool with two free-form string inputs at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call. Both input encoding and result shape are entirely missing.

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% and both parameters are untyped strings, so the description is the only place format could be explained. It says nothing about how `values` and `weights` should be encoded (CSV, JSON array, space-separated) or whether they must be equal length.

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?

"Weighted Median: Median of weighted" restates the tool name in a fragment that adds no definition; "median of weighted" is not a coherent explanation of the computation. It does not distinguish this from the many sibling stats tools such as x402-weighted-mean, x402-median, or x402-trimmed-mean.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no pointer to alternatives (plain median, weighted mean, trimmed mean). The only extra sentence is about free trial calls, which is billing context rather than usage guidance.

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