assess_counterparty

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety/side-effect burden itself. It discloses a meaningful side effect (USDC cost of $0.002, auto-paid) and the data inputs (on-chain settlement behavior on Base + delivery-outcome flywheel). However, it does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it persists anything, or what happens if the payment fails or balance is insufficient.

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 sentences; the core purpose and timing are front-loaded, and the output list and cost are delivered without filler. 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 paid risk-assessment call with no output schema, the description covers the required timing, return fields, cost, and scoring provenance. The main gap is not clarifying how the returned 'recommended_policy' relates to the sibling recommend_policy tool or whether it is auto-applied.

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 description never mentions any of the three input params (target, policy, payment_context) and schema coverage is reported as 0%, so it does not compensate. Some nested schema descriptions exist, but the tool text itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 action ('Assess the risk'), a concrete resource ('x402 counterparty / payTo address'), and a clear temporal guardrail ('BEFORE paying'). It differentiates itself by naming the returned risk decision/policy and on-chain data source, helping an agent distinguish it from siblings like report_outcome or assess_rwa.

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 prescribes the trigger: call before authorizing any x402 payment above your risk threshold. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a full 5.

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