x402_job_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the auth mechanism ('this server's locally saved API key'), which is real added context, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, rate limits, error behavior, or what the status payload contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (verb, resource, provenance, auth) earns its place. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about what a 'status' result looks like or what states exist. For a 1-param polling tool it should say more about the returned status values and error cases; it omits both.

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 0% and the single job_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by scoping job_id to 'a job created through x402' via this server, telling the agent which job namespace is valid, but adds no format or constraint detail.

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 and resource ('Get the status of a job'), which is unambiguous against siblings like x402_run_job (which runs a job) and x402_quote. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'a job created through x402' implies this is a follow-up/polling call after job submission, but it never states when to use it versus x402_run_job or x402_quote, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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