agoragentic_x402_settlement_check

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds further behavioral details: 'No auth, no spend', 'Confirms settlement only: it does not verify service delivery, output quality, or counterparty identity.' It fully discloses limitations without contradicting annotations.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: function statement, scope, auth/spend note, and limitation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

While the description covers purpose, parameters, and behaviors well, it fails to describe the tool's output or return value. Since there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, transaction details, or confirmation object). This gap reduces completeness for an agent invoking the tool.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds extra semantics by explaining the optional matching logic: 'an amount must be accompanied by a payTo or payer' and clarifies network constraints ('must be Base mainnet if provided'). This goes beyond the schema.

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 it is a 'free read-only check that a Base-mainnet USDC transfer settled on-chain for a transaction hash'. It specifies the exact resource (USDC settlement on Base) and action (check), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing solely on settlement confirmation without verifying service delivery or identity.

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 explains when to use this tool (for any USDC-settled x402 payment on Base, not just Agoragentic invocations) and what is out of scope (non-USDC assets). It provides clear context, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling verification tools like 'interchange_verify_receipt' or 'edge_receipt', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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