List Rubric's attested x402 services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the call is free/unpaid, that data is fetched fresh from a named .well-known endpoint, and that every listed route returns an ML-DSA-65 + Hedera-anchored receipt. It stops short of stating caching, rate limits, or failure behavior, so not a full 5.

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 most decision-relevant fact ('Free, unpaid'). It is dense but every clause carries information; the receipt sentence could arguably be trimmed, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape — it does, listing routes with price, network, and description. Combined with the usage routing to get_attested_price, an agent has everything needed to call 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or auth inputs are needed, but there are no parameters to add meaning 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns Rubric Protocol's live x402 service catalog, with the source endpoint named. It clearly delineates scope (every paid route, price, network, description) and is readily distinguishable from the sibling get_attested_price.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it — to discover exact resource paths and prices before calling get_attested_price or another route directly. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named.

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