Automaton Colony

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the specific fail mode (PaymentRequired document when _meta['x402/payment'] is missing), the asynchronous settlement behavior, and the successful return value (orderKey). This is rich behavioral context for a paid mutation operation and gives the agent precise expectations.

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 and front-loads the essential paid-over-x402 context before the operational details. It is somewhat dense, but every sentence earns its place by covering payment, error condition, success path, and next step.

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 operation has no output schema and involves payment plus async settlement, the description covers the main flow well: required payment metadata, PaymentRequired error document, async validation, orderKey return, and collection via sibling. It does not describe exact error payloads beyond isError or validation-failure details, but remains sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3: targetAddress and language are fully documented with types, regex, and enum values. The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but it does clarify the external payment metadata requirement, which is not an input property.

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: buying a flash audit via x402 payment in USDC on Base, and the expected result: an orderKey to use with collect_flash_audit. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling by explicitly linking to collect_flash_audit and the paid nature of 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?

The description explains the payment condition and the follow-up step ('returns an orderKey to collect with collect_flash_audit'), but it does not explicitly compare this tool to check_contract_free or flash_audit_terms. Usage context is implied by the paid/x402 framing, but exclusions and alternative conditions are left to the agent to infer.

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, so the safety profile is covered there. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no wallet needed, no verdict or score, observed on-chain facts only, rate limiting with a monthly quota. This goes beyond the annotations and sets correct expectations about limitations.

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 no filler. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded: 'Free, no wallet' and 'no verdict and no score'. The description then efficiently lists what the check covers and closes with practical rate-limit information. 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide whether and how to call it. It explains the free/no-wallet nature, the output scope (facts, not verdicts), the main returned fact types, and the rate-limit constraint. No critical information appears 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?

The schema already covers the single parameter fully with a regex, a description of the expected address, and a network qualifier. The tool description reinforces that this is a Base address and mentions B20 native tokens, but it does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it performs a free check of a Base address/contract. It clearly scopes the tool to observed on-chain facts with no verdict and no score, and enumerates the fact categories (verified source, proxy detection, admin selectors, holder concentration, issuer powers). This strongly differentiates it from the flash-audit siblings, which imply paid, scored audit outcomes.

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 context for when this tool is appropriate: free, no wallet required, and useful for quick on-chain facts without a verdict/score. It also warns about rate limiting and monthly quota. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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 indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool returns transient status while the order settles, then the actual JSON report once delivered, and it is intended to be polled repeatedly. No contradictions 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 three short sentences with no filler: it states the resource, the behavior over time, the polling cadence, and the cost. Every sentence adds useful information and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the two possible response phases: status while pending and the report JSON once delivered. It omits explicit guidance that orderKey should come from buy_flash_audit and does not enumerate possible status values, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to poll 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries some burden, but the single parameter orderKey is largely self-explanatory and its format is fully specified by the schema pattern. The description's mention of 'an x402 order' implies orderKey identifies that order, but it does not explicitly state that the key should come from buy_flash_audit.

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 title 'Collect a Flash Audit order' plus the description clearly define the operation: return the status of an existing x402 order while it settles, then the report JSON once DELIVERED. This distinguishes it from sibling buy_flash_audit, which creates the order, by describing the collection/status side of the lifecycle.

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 usage guidance: poll every 10-15 seconds until the order reaches DELIVERED. It implies this tool is used after an order is placed, but it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or say when not to use it.

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond the flags: it returns the x402 v2 PaymentRequired document and enumerates its contents (amount in USDC base units, network, asset, payTo, request schema), plus notes the tool is free. This enriches the bare annotation profile without contradicting it.

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 front-loaded sentence that starts with the action 'Returns', followed by a focused list of returned fields and a two-word sentence 'Free.' There is no filler or repetition of schema details, and every clause contributes meaningful 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-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, response content, and cost. It does not explain workflow ordering relative to sibling tools, but that is minimally necessary for invoking this simple endpoint correctly. The 'request schema' reference is slightly underspecified but acceptable.

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 schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description's enumeration of returned fields provides useful context without needing to explain inputs.

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: 'Returns the x402 v2 PaymentRequired document for the paid Flash Audit'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like buy_flash_audit and collect_flash_audit, which imply transactional actions, and check_contract_free, which is about free contract checks. The resource is unique and unambiguous.

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 guidance or alternative routing. The phrase 'for the paid Flash Audit' implies it applies to paid audits, but it does not say 'use this before buy_flash_audit' or contrast with check_contract_free. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from sibling names alone.

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