x402 bulk trust scoring (paid)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: cache staleness (~15 min) with on-demand recompute, no live network re-probe, side effect of refreshing the free public snapshot, recompute caps (50 endpoints / 8 seconds) surfaced via `recompute_limit_hit`/`recompute_limit`, `found:false` for unobserved resources with billing still applied, and automatic smallest-tier selection with per-tier pricing.

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?

Front-loads the core capability and pricing/refund caveats in a tight sequence, and every sentence carries distinct operational information. It is dense to the point of being long, but there is little pure filler.

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, so the description enumerates the returned fields (score, grade, recommendation, confidence, probed_at, computed_at, recomputed, recompute_limit flags) and the payment/failure modes. Nothing material an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds value beyond the schema by giving the tier price points, confirming the auto-selection behavior, and clarifying the '?' unmeasured case for scores. It does not, however, add syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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 (score), resource (x402 endpoints), and scale (up to 500 in a single paid call), and immediately distinguishes itself from the single-endpoint sibling `x402_trust_score`. An agent can tell what it returns (score 0-100, grade, recommendation, confidence, timestamps) without opening anything else.

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 routes the agent: 'For a fresh live probe, use `x402_trust_score`', and explains the payment path (auto-pays if a wallet is configured, otherwise returns a price quote). It does not address when to prefer other siblings like `x402_trust_preview` or `x402_trust_leaderboard`, so coverage of alternatives is good but not exhaustive.

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