x402_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the async nature (returns a job ticket), the polling requirement, cost ($0.50 USDC/call), and output characteristics (~10s 720p). It does not cover failure modes, auth, or rate limits, but the critical behavioral traits are present.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero fluff. The core action and output specs are front-loaded, followed by the essential async/polling instruction. Every clause adds operational 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full invocation path: input (prompt), output expectation (job ticket), follow-up action (poll x402_poll_job with job_type 'media'), and cost. It could detail the job ticket shape, but the agent has enough to call and proceed 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the prompt generates a video clip, which is somewhat redundant with the schema's 'Video prompt'. It does not enrich param semantics with prompt style, length limits, or formatting guidance, but no major gap exists given the single simple param.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('AI video generation') with concrete output specs (~10s 720p clip from a prompt). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like x402_image and x402_tts, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when AI-generated video is needed) and explicitly instructs the follow-up step: poll with x402_poll_job using job_type 'media'. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives for video vs. image/audio, but the async workflow and polling handoff are well specified.

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