trust_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the monetary cost (0.05 USDC on Base via x402), that a live network probe occurs, what data is read, and the self-dealing heuristic applied. It stops short of stating whether a wallet/auth is required or that the call itself constitutes a paid x402 request, which an agent attempting a call would want to know.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the purpose and every clause adds real information (mechanism, output, cost). Slightly run-on, yet no filler to cut.

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 fills that gap by describing the verdict scale, the reasons returned, and the readable window. Cost and mechanism are covered. What remains thin is prerequisite setup (wallet/payment flow) and whether the probe itself incurs side effects.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the tricky confirmNewPurchase guard. The description does not add meaning beyond that (e.g., it never explains the re-purchase confirmation semantics tied to the 0.05 USDC charge). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and scope: an x402 seller trust check performed before payment, with the exact mechanism (probe live 402, read USDC inflow to payTo on Base, count payers, flag self-dealing) and output (green/yellow/red verdict). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 leading clause 'before you pay' gives clear timing context, and the described verdict makes the decision it feeds obvious. It does not name alternatives or an explicit when-not, but no sibling competes for this task, so guidance is effectively complete.

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