gold402_check_endpoint

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

The description discloses specific behavioral details beyond annotations: it sends one unpaid request, does not spend money, does not verify delivery, and checks the manifest. These details are not captured by readOnlyHint or openWorldHint, adding valuable context for the agent to manage 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific outputs and limitations. It is concise (five sentences) and every sentence adds value—no filler, no redundancy, and the structure flows logically.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return formatting. It covers the essential output elements (status, 402 challenge, payment terms, manifest check) and clearly states constraints (does not spend money, does not verify delivery), making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

Despite the schema having descriptions for url, method, and response_format, the coverage signal is 0% (likely top-level params lacks description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining how to use these parameters; it omits any mention of method or response_format, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema descriptions for parameter guidance.

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 tool's purpose: to live-probe any x402 endpoint, sending an unpaid request and reporting liveness, HTTP status, payment challenge, and terms. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings (search, list_sections, get_entry, verdict) by focusing on endpoint probing rather than content retrieval, and clarifies it applies to any endpoint, listed or not.

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 provides clear context on when to use it ('before paying it') and explicitly states what it does NOT do (spend money or verify delivery). It implies this is for pre-payment validation but does not explicitly name alternative tools for delivery verification or content exploration, which minor gap prevents a 5.

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