x402 bulk trust scoring (paid)

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses caching (recompute older than ~15 min), recompute limits (max 50 endpoints/8 sec), return fields including found:false for missing resources, automatic tier selection, and payment behavior (auto-pay or quote). This is comprehensive.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core purpose, then detailing caching, recompute limits, pricing, and fallback behavior. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (trust score, grade, recommendation, etc.), caching freshness, recompute flags, missing resource handling, and pricing. It fully contextualizes the tool's behavior and limitations.

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% but description adds meaning: explains optionality of tier, automatic tier selection, and that resources are full URLs with duplicates ignored. It also expands on output fields, compensating for the lack of output schema.

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 'Score up to 500 x402 endpoints in a SINGLE paid call,' specifying the verb (score), resource (x402 endpoints), and distinguishes from sibling tool x402_trust_score which performs fresh live probes.

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 explicitly contrasts with x402_trust_score for fresh probes and explains caching behavior, pricing tiers, and recompute limits. It also cautions that missing resources still incur payment. However, it could more directly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., single endpoint vs bulk).

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