search_x402_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope ('LIVE' endpoints only) and the semantics of sort/price/score values, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering guarantees, auth requirements, or what the response contains — gaps that matter for a 7-param discovery tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then a dense enumerated filter list. No filler words and no redundancy with the schema's parameter names alone.

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?

Covers all seven optional filters with units, ranges, and enum values, which is most of what an agent needs to construct a call. Missing pieces are behavioral rather than parametric: no indication of result contents (no output schema exists to cover this) or pagination behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives the unit for max_price (USDC), the valid range for min_score (0-100) and limit (1-50), and the allowed sort values (score|price|latency|newest), plus an example chain set. Only defaults (limit=10, sort=score) are left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Search LIVE x402 (HTTP 402 pay-per-call) endpoints' — and clarifies the domain jargon (HTTP 402, pay-per-call) an agent may not know. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling route_x402_request, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 word 'LIVE' and the filter set imply 'use this to discover callable endpoints,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of what to do next (e.g. call get_paid_route_requirements before routing), and no named alternative. Usage is only implied.

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