x402 trust preview — full sample reports (free)

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

Discloses complete behavioral details: returns three specific samples with full reports, is free, and cannot score user-chosen endpoints. No side effects, but as a read-only preview, no additional disclosure is needed. With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits.

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?

Every sentence is informative and necessary. The description is front-loaded with the key purpose and constraints, and flows logically without fluff.

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 fully explains what the sample reports contain (every field). It also addresses the use case and limitations. The tool is simple, and the description leaves no gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining that you do not choose the endpoint, which clarifies the lack of parameters beyond the 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 the tool is a free showcase returning complete trust reports for three sample endpoints (best, median, worst). It distinguishes from x402_trust_score (paid) by explicitly noting it cannot score a user-chosen endpoint.

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 states when to use (to preview paid output before paying) and when not to use (to evaluate your own endpoint, instead use x402_trust_score). Also notes it takes no arguments.

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