List my paid x402 routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description aligns with that. It adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations by requiring an Apiosk provider token and by specifying that results include paid URLs, prices, and live status. No pagination or error behavior is described, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose, scope, returned data, and auth requirement are all covered in minimal space.

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?

This is a simple read-only listing operation with one optional parameter, a good input schema, and an output schema present. The description provides the essential context: what is listed, for whom, and what auth is required. Nothing critical 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?

The input schema covers the only parameter ('status') with an enum and a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't add any extra meaning to the status parameter, but it doesn't need to; baseline 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 specific verb 'List' with a clear resource type ('x402 routes') and scope ('published by the authenticated provider'). It also lists the key returned data (paid URLs, prices, live status), which distinguishes it from broader listing tools like apiosk_list_my_apis.

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 clearly states the context: listing routes for the authenticated provider, and it mentions a required provider token. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling set (publish_x402_route, update_x402_route, unpublish_x402_route) makes the intended use obvious.

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