X402 Server Probe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, clearly indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the probe's scope (discovery, status, etc.) without contradicting annotations. It does not introduce new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and introduces the tool's core purpose efficiently. Every word adds value.

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 tool's complexity (server probe) and lack of output schema, the description omits what the probe returns (e.g., a JSON report) and how to interpret results. It also does not clarify the distinction from similar sibling tools like util_x402_resource_summary, leaving gaps for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 any additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 probes an x402 server end-to-end, listing specific aspects (discovery, status, tools, reliability, OpenAPI). This provides a specific verb-resource-scope combination, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like util_x402_server_audit, leaving some ambiguity.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that Delx Agent Utilities are separate from the free witness protocol, but does not specify conditions for selection among sibling x402 utilities or provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use cues.

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