x402_crawl_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely succeeds: it discloses network probing and the key side effect of 'auto-adds confirmed services to the local directory.' It does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or behavior toward already-known services, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the target and purpose, the execution steps, and the return output. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the return contract is only described as a 'summary of newly discovered services' — enough to know the general kind of result but not its shape or contents. The tool's effect on existing directory entries and behavior at max_results is also left implicit.

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 single parameter max_results is already fully described in the input schema with a default of 20, and the description adds no extra semantics about how the limit affects crawling or discovery. This aligns with the baseline for high schema_description_coverage.

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 identifies a concrete action, target, and outcome: 'Crawl x402scan.com resources page to discover new x402 endpoints.' It also details the process (extract URLs, probe for support, auto-add confirmed services) and returns a summary, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling discovery/search tools.

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 intended use is clear: run it to discover and auto-add new x402 endpoints found on the resources page. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over the other discovery/search tools.

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