x402_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses result ranking (by real usage), a filtering rule (decoy/honeypot endpoints ≥$1000 excluded), the fields returned (price, method, network, recent activity), and — critically — that each call costs $0.005 USDC on Base paid automatically from the configured wallet. Cost and payment mechanics are non-obvious traits an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers in scope, filtering, and cost. Every sentence carries information, though the single long middle sentence packs return fields and the honeypot rule tightly enough to be slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by enumerating returned fields and the ranking basis. It still leaves the response envelope (count, pagination, failure behavior when payment fails or no match is found) unspecified, which matters for a paid, agent-invoked call.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by giving semantic examples of the required `q` intent strings and confirming results are ranked/filtered. The `limit`, `category`, and `max_price` parameters are left entirely to the schema, which handles them adequately.

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 verb+resource ("Find a paid API for a task") and immediately clarifies the mechanism: describe a need in natural language and get matching x402 endpoints. The concrete query examples ('weather forecast', 'token price', 'transcribe audio') and the returned fields make the purpose unmistakable and distinct from listing-oriented siblings like x402_services.

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?

Clearly tells the agent the input style (describe what you need) and frames it as intent-based discovery, which implicitly positions it against listing tools. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion (e.g., use x402_services to browse, x402_trending for popularity), so the agent must infer sibling routing.

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