x402_working_services

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

Describes the tool as returning alive services with valid challenges, ranked, and free. Adequately transparent for a no-parameter read operation, though no annotations exist to shift burden.

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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with purpose and key details.

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?

Sufficient for a simple list tool: covers purpose, usage, behavioral context. No output schema, but return semantics (alive, challenge, trust rank) are implied. Could specify output structure more explicitly.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage 100%. Baseline 4 is appropriate as description need not add parameter info.

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?

Clearly states it lists alive x402 agent-payment services ranked by trust score. Distinguishes from sibling 'check_x402_endpoint' (individual check) by being a batch list.

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?

Explicitly advises using this to avoid broken/scam endpoints and mentions ~85% dead rate. Implicitly distinguishes from check_x402_endpoint, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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