v1_endpoint_scorecard

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: cost ($0.02 USDC), determinism, use of public-source data only, collection frequency (~3x/day since a specific date), and that it provides presence/persistence data, not an endorsement.

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?

The description is concise, with three sentences that front-load the cost and purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. The structure efficiently communicates what the tool does, when to use it, and its constraints.

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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the tool's purpose, output expectations (listing history, observed age, first observation, consistency), data source, limitations, and cost. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to understand the tool's utility.

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 single parameter 'resource' is described in the schema with a pattern and description. The tool description adds value by specifying the requirement for the URL to be 'exactly as it appears in public catalogs,' providing clarity 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 it provides public listing history and observed age for an x402 resource URL, explicitly acting as a due-diligence scorecard. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on x402 resources and public catalog data.

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 description advises using the tool 'before an agent pays' a resource, indicating the context. It also specifies the input format and notes the data source (public catalogs, no internal data). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, the context is clear.

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