x402_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the 'free' nature and implies a read-only operation via 'Check', but it does not describe whether authentication is required, what the response contains, or whether it checks underlying services. Adds some value beyond the empty schema, but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 the core purpose front-loaded. The additional note about being a 'free endpoint' is a useful differentiator and earns its place without padding.

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 0-parameter health check tool. The description conveys its function and cost, which is adequate for basic selection. It could elaborate on what 'health status' entails or the response format, but given the simplicity, the current description is reasonably complete.

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 0 parameters, and the schema already fully covers this (empty properties). The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline score of 4.

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 the specific verb 'Check' with the resource 'API health status', clearly identifying the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools (wallet_score, token_metrics, etc.), which focus on metrics rather than health. However, it does not specify what 'health status' means (e.g., up/down, latency, dependencies) or the expected response format.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions it is a 'free endpoint', implying a cost advantage but does not state when this should be preferred over sibling tools or any exclusions. No sibling tools are referenced in the description.

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