x402_run_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful safety gate: payment is conditional on confirm=true and passing spend caps, and settlement is in Base USDC. It still omits failure/refund semantics, idempotency, and whether confirm=false returns a quote, which matters for a financial mutation.

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 dense sentence with the action and its safety condition front-loaded, no filler. The interposed 'only with confirm=true and all spend caps passing' clause slightly disrupts flow but is well placed as a guard on the pay verb.

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?

For a 7-parameter financial mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains the quote-then-pay return shape, what happens when confirm=false, or how the six optional parameters affect the job. An agent cannot confidently invoke it beyond the happy path.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only gestures at confirm and the spend cap (max_usd); gpu_type, card_count, workload_type, routing_policy, and duration_seconds are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 specific verb pair (quote and pay) and a specific resource (one GPU job) with the payment currency (Base USDC), so the agent knows this is the execution/payment step of the x402 flow. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from x402_quote, which creates mild ambiguity about whether quoting also happens here.

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?

It states the precondition for the payment leg ('only with confirm=true and all spend caps passing'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over x402_quote or x402_job_status, so the routing decision is left implied.

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