x402_seo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the cost per call, which is useful, but it omits whether the operation is read-only, what exactly the audit covers, what the score means, or any potential side effects. The lack of output schema or return details leaves the agent guessing about the response format and content.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a cost note. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately short for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete for an agent to decide when to use it. It does not explain what constitutes an SEO audit, what the score represents, or how it compares to related tools like x402_metadata or x402_render. The agent is left without enough context to determine suitability or interpret the result.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter (url) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage. No additional context like URL format or constraints is provided.

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 performs an instant SEO audit of a URL and returns a score. The verb 'audit' and resource 'URL' are specific, and the '$0.02 USDC/call' cost distinguishes it from sibling tools that serve other domains (search, read, chat, etc.). It is unambiguous about the core function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like x402_metadata or x402_render. An agent has to infer that an SEO audit is distinct, but there is no explicit 'use this for SEO analysis' or 'not for other URL checks'.

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