x402_tx_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'check' but does not specify whether this is read-only, what fields are returned, or how failures are signaled. It adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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 extremely concise at six words, with no filler or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded and to the point, scoring high on efficiency, though it sacrifices informative content.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the schema covers the parameter. However, without an output schema or any description of what the status entails (e.g., possible values, confirmation count, failure reasons), the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what to expect. It also lacks context on how this tool fits into the broader x402 payment flow.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for txHash ('Transaction hash to check'). The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema states, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb 'check' and identifies the resource as 'payment transaction status', making the core purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like x402_verify_payment or x402_get_payment_history, which could overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single sentence with no context about typical use cases, exclusions, or when a different x402 tool would be more appropriate.

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