x402_trust_previewPreview sample x402 endpoint trust reports showing best, median, and worst score outputs, so agents can see the report format before checking reputation.
Sample pack: three complete trust reports (best, median, worst) exactly as x402_trust_score returns them. Takes no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return content: exactly three reports at best/median/worst positions, in the same shape as x402_trust_score. It does not mention quota, cost, or determinism, but for a static no-arg sample pack this is solid disclosure.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the content of the pack is front-loaded before the no-argument note.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it supplies the cardinality and shape. It stops short of describing the report fields themselves, but that detail is fairly delegated to the referenced x402_trust_score shape.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments', leaving no ambiguity about invocation.
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 names a concrete deliverable: three complete trust reports (best, median, worst) formatted exactly as x402_trust_score returns them. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling x402_trust_score by framing itself as a sample/preview of that tool's output, though it never states this routing explicitly.
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 relationship to x402_trust_score is implied by 'exactly as x402_trust_score returns them', letting an agent infer this is a preview. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g. 'call this before spending quota on x402_trust_score') and no when-not-to-use statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.