access_l402_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'automatic Lightning payment,' implying transactional behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details: whether this deducts from a balance, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., payment errors). For a tool involving payments and API access, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Access an L402-protected API endpoint') and adds key detail ('with automatic Lightning payment'). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (payment-involved API access), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like payment confirmation. For a tool with financial implications, this leaves too many unknowns for safe agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('endpoint' with enum values, 'symbol' with default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses these for API access and payments. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Access an L402-protected API endpoint with automatic Lightning payment.' It specifies the verb ('access'), resource ('L402-protected API endpoint'), and key capability ('automatic Lightning payment'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pay_lightning_invoice' or 'check_channel_balance', which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a wallet or balance), use cases (e.g., for paid data vs. free endpoints), or exclusions (e.g., not for direct payments). With sibling tools like 'pay_lightning_invoice' and 'get_agent_balance', this lack of context is a significant gap.

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