Check x402 service health

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: it returns different structures depending on whether slug is present, and explains that include_services defaults to false to keep directory responses lean. Also clarifies the tool involves no money fields.

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 bit informal and runs long in parts, but it is still compact and puts the primary use case first. The mode explanations are efficient, though the phrasing could be more structured.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main return shapes (directory counts vs. single-service details). It omits error cases but that is acceptable for a health check tool.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the tool description adds context: it explains how slug toggles the mode, how uptime_period applies only in single-service mode, and why include_services defaults to false. This extra rationale helps an agent choose values correctly.

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 the verb 'Check' and resource 'x402 service health' clearly. Distinguishes between directory mode and single-service mode, so its scope is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to call it ('before you send a payment, or right after a call unexpectedly failed'). Does not name sibling tools directly, but the context signals list them; the usage timing is sufficient to distinguish it.

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