Get x402 service

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the read-only nature, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that, such as the optional include_series behavior and the important units-map warning that prices are atomic token units, not dollars.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose and use case. It lists response contents efficiently and keeps the optional-series explanation brief, though the phrasing is slightly awkward in places.

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?

With no output schema provided, the description supplies a useful inventory of the response fields and flags the key units caveat. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive, though 'assessment block' is mentioned without explanation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates what the schema already explains for slug and include_series without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema text itself.

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 clearly states the action: retrieve the full service record for a given slug, and it lists the key contents (status, uptime, response time, networks, endpoints, assessment). It also frames the intended moment of use ('once you hold a slug and are deciding whether to commit'), which differentiates it from search or health-check siblings.

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 tells the agent when to call it: after obtaining a slug and before committing to a service. It implies this is the comprehensive lookup rather than a lighter health check, though it does not explicitly contrast with x402_check_health or x402_find_best_service.

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