Resubmit an x402 payment proof

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

Far exceeds the annotations: it states no new money moves and no approval is requested, describes the on-chain pre-check and each resulting status (pending, reverted with payment none), and discloses the seller acceptance window (~10 minutes on the reference server) and 7-day proof retention. The idempotent/read-only nature is confirmed in prose rather than left to the hints alone.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the usage trigger and then the behavioral detail. The length is justified by the number of distinct outcomes (pending, reverted, refused) that the agent must handle correctly.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description states the return shape matches x402_fetch and enumerates every status the caller may encounter along with the correct reaction to each. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the tx must be one the wallet broadcast itself and is re-sent together with the saved challenge values to the same URL. That provenance and pairing context goes beyond the schema's bare field description.

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 (resubmits the on-chain proof of an x402 payment this wallet already broadcast) plus the goal (to get the content it paid for). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling x402_fetch by explicitly framing itself as the follow-up for a tx that came back without content.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition: 'Use it when x402_fetch returned a `tx` without content (status pending, unknown or undelivered, or settlement_failed with a tx).' It also names the alternative (x402_fetch) and warns against paying again in the settlement_failed/refused cases.

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