token4u_consumption

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the API is public and requires no login, and it lists the exact return fields (model, token usage, credits, amount paid in USD, transaction hash, timestamp). It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a read-only query this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only essential details (public API, return fields). Every sentence earns its place without waste.

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?

The description covers purpose, public access, and return fields, which is important because no output schema exists. For a simple query tool with three parameters, it is fairly complete. It lacks details on pagination behavior or error conditions, but the schema covers page/page_size and default values, so the description meets the core needs.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The description mentions 'given EVM wallet address' which aligns with the address parameter but adds no additional detail about page or page_size beyond the schema's defaults.

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 the tool queries x402 consumption records for a given EVM wallet address, using the specific verb 'Query' and identifying the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like token4u_wallet and token4u_chat, which likely handle wallet and chat functions respectively.

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 provides clear context for usage: it is a public API requiring no login, intended for querying per-call consumption records for a wallet address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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