x402 Trust score for an endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait — unknown endpoints are live-probed on the spot, implying real network latency or cost — but says nothing about caching of known endpoints, authentication, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 tight sentences: the return payload is front-loaded and the operational caveat follows. No filler, and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (score, grade, recommendation, price, flags), which is exactly what the agent needs to interpret results. It remains slightly incomplete on cost/latency expectations of the live probe and on how failures or unknown-but-unprobeable endpoints are reported.

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% for the single 'resource' parameter, and the schema already gives a format example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or validation detail beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific resource (one x402 endpoint) and the artifact returned (a full trust verdict with score, grade, recommendation, price, flags), so an agent can tell it apart from a generic search tool. It does not name or contrast with the nearest siblings (x402_trust_preview, x402_trust_bulk), so differentiation is implied by 'full' and 'one' rather than explicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings x402_trust_preview and x402_trust_bulk that clearly compete for the same task. The only usage-adjacent signal is that unknown endpoints get live-probed, which hints at latency but never tells the agent when to prefer this over a preview or bulk call.

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