Run an Agent402 tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: automatic payment handling, wallet-key vs proof-of-work eligibility, and which tool categories are wallet-keyed. This helps the agent anticipate side-effects and prerequisites not visible in annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the primary function; the second covers payment behavior; the third enumerates wallet-keyed highlights. Every sentence adds necessary information and the most important usage instruction is front-loaded.

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 generic tool with dynamic target semantics, the description covers: how to identify targets (slugs), how to find them, payment mechanics, and eligibility conditions. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are handled elsewhere. No critical operational information is missing.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description goes further by giving concrete slug examples ("search" or "unit-convert") and clarifying that params must match the target tool's inputSchema, which reduces misuse risk for this generic dispatcher.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Call any Agent402 tool by slug'. It clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from the slug-discovery siblings (catalog.find, catalog.search) by directing users to those for slug lookup. No ambiguity remains about the tool's role.

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 explicitly tells the agent to find slugs via catalog.find or catalog.search before calling this tool, which is a clear usage workflow. It also explains the two payment paths (USDC via x402 vs proof-of-work) and gives wallet-keyed examples. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of the direct sibling tools', but the universal dispatcher role is strongly implied.

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