x402_wiki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the cost ($0.01 USDC/call), which is useful, but it does not disclose output format, error handling (e.g., topic not found), rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about what to expect beyond a 'summary'.

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, short sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Wikipedia summary') and includes the cost. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with one parameter. However, it is almost too terse, but it does not waste words. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 minimally adequate but lacks depth. It does not describe the nature of the summary (e.g., length, language, format) or what happens if the topic is invalid. An agent might need to infer that the output is a text summary. For a micro-tool like this, it is functional but not rich; a slightly more detailed description would improve completeness.

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 has 100% coverage: the only parameter 'topic' is described as 'Topic'. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, such as expected format, length, or examples. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat it but could have added context like 'search term for Wikipedia'.

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 'Wikipedia summary' which clearly identifies the resource and action: retrieving a summary from Wikipedia. It is distinct from sibling tools like x402_search or x402_read because it explicitly names Wikipedia. However, it is terse and could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'Fetches a Wikipedia summary for the given topic'), but it is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. The context is implied: if an agent needs a Wikipedia summary, this is the tool. But there are no exclusions or mentions of alternatives, such as using x402_search for broader queries or x402_read for full articles. It is minimal but not misleading.

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