x402_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries real weight and does so: it discloses a per-call cost of $0.01 USDC on Base paid automatically from a configured wallet, and it discloses a non-obvious default filter that drops services whose volume comes from fewer than 5 wallets. It stops short of describing pagination, result ordering limits, or error behavior when a wallet is unconfigured.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its metrics, followed by the cost disclosure. The first sentence is dense but every clause (metrics, returned fields, concentration flag, category filter) adds information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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, the description still enumerates the returned shape (endpoint count, median price, networks, concentration flag), covers all four parameters, and discloses the payment model. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the ranking metrics are defined as 30-day calls, unique payers, and estimated revenue, and the <5-wallet concentration exclusion is stated as a default rather than only as an opt-in flag. That clarifies the behavior of include_concentrated beyond the enum's own text.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Ranked x402 services') plus the three ranking metrics, so an agent can tell it is a rankings/list tool rather than a lookup. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (x402_search, x402_trending, x402_pricing), so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can guess this is the tool for browsing ranked services by calls/payers/revenue, and filtering by category is mentioned. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated conditions for picking this over x402_trending or x402_search, and no exclusions.

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