X402 Server Audit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds value by disclosing that utility pricing may be exposed and listing specific signal categories, which aids expectation-setting beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences: first states core purpose with specific outputs, second provides important contextual distinction from witness protocol. No fluff, well-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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a low-complexity tool, though it omits details on the return format (e.g., whether it returns a report or structured signals).

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (url and timeout). The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, meeting baseline expectation.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'audit' and resource 'x402 server', listing four concrete signal categories (discovery, pricing, reliability, documentation readiness). It differentiates from sibling util_x402_server_probe by referencing utility pricing and the separate nature of Delx Agent Utilities.

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 implies usage context (auditing with pricing/reliability/documentation signals) and notes it is separate from the witness protocol, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like util_x402_server_probe.

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