x402_server_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only nature via 'Check' and 'Shows,' but lacks details on permissions, failure modes, response format, or dependencies (e.g., server availability). It is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, and it avoids unnecessary detail.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description reasonably covers the key output areas (wallet, facilitator connection, endpoint configuration). However, there is no output schema, so it could be more explicit about return format or status indicators, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple status check.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters and adds no parameter-related information.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Check x402 server configuration and status.' It also specifies key components (wallet, facilitator connection, endpoint configuration), distinguishing it from generic health or info tools.

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 provides context about what the tool shows, implying use when needing x402 server configuration and status. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like x402_config or server_health, nor does it mention exclusions or specific scenarios.

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