get_payment_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the concrete return contents (0.50 USDC fee, Base vault address, official Base USDC contract) and implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or whether the fee varies by contract.

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 definition is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the key returned values. Every part earns its place, with no filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and why it matters in the audit workflow. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying how the optional contract_address affects the payment parameters, but the core context is present.

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?

There is one optional parameter, contract_address, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains its meaning. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 and resource: it retrieves x402 payment parameters needed to unlock a contract audit, and it names the returned items (fee, Base vault address, USDC contract). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools audit_contract and check_service_status.

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 phrase 'required to unlock a contract audit' gives clear usage context: an agent should call this before auditing a contract. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is clear enough.

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