x402 Trust endpoint observation history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful semantic rule — 'Excluded probes never count as downtime' — which an agent could not infer from the schema, and it discloses that a summary is bundled in. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and return format, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool returns before the caveat about excluded probes. Every clause maps to a concrete output type.

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, but the description enumerates the return contents (probes, events, price/payTo changes, failures, latencies, summary), which is the key gap filler. For a two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, only return format/shape and any pagination or windowing caveats remain unspecified.

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 100% (both `resource` and `days` are documented, including the default of 30), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's '1-90 days' restates the schema's min/max rather than adding new semantics, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Raw probe and event history for one endpoint') and scopes it to 1-90 days, enumerating the contents (price/payTo changes, failures, latencies, summary). It does not name or contrast with siblings such as x402_watch_events or x402_trust_score, so the 'one endpoint' vs. watch/bulk distinction is left implicit.

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 scope (single endpoint, historical window) implies the use case of investigating one endpoint's past behavior, but the description never states when to prefer this over x402_watch_events, x402_trust_score, or x402_trust_preview. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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