apiosk_inspect_x402

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it makes one unauthenticated request, parses the 402 offer, returns the exact amount, and never spends funds. This directly addresses the safety-critical concern of accidental payment.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it does, when to use it, and what it doesn't do. Key safety information is front-loaded ('WITHOUT paying') and no redundant wording appears.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it explains the input source, the single unauthenticated request behavior, and the explicit exclusion of apiosk_execute. Nothing important 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. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the `url` should come from an external apiosk_discover result and that the `method` is the HTTP method the resource charges on. This goes slightly beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Read an arbitrary URL's x402 payment terms') and names the exact data it returns (price, asset, network, payTo). It also distinguishes itself from apiosk_execute, making the tool's unique role clear among the many sibling 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?

It explicitly says when to use it: on an external result's `url` from apiosk_discover before paying. It also says when not to use it: apiosk_execute does not need this for Apiosk catalog listings. This gives an agent both positive and negative usage guidance.

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