x402_whois

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the $0.01 USDC/call cost and the use of RDAP, which is useful operational context, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, response format, or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function and the cost. There is no filler, and every word contributes essential information.

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 lookup tool, the description is reasonably complete and includes the critical cost detail. However, it does not describe the return value or any limitations, and with no annotations the absence of safety or prerequisite information leaves some gaps.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single domain parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful format or example details beyond 'Domain', but no compensation is required given the high schema 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 the resource (domain) and the operation (WHOIS via RDAP), so an agent can tell this is a domain WHOIS lookup. It is distinct from siblings like x402_dns or x402_certs by protocol and purpose, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'lookup'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as x402_dns or x402_certs, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The only extra hint is the cost, which does not help with tool selection.

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