AgentPay x402 — Crypto Data Tools for AI Agents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 'live onchain results,' specifies the return structure ('rows[], columns[], row_count, generated_at'), and includes pricing information ('$0.005 USDC per call'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage guidelines, return values, and pricing. Each sentence earns its place by providing distinct, valuable information without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying return structure and pricing. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (including a nested object) and no safety annotations, it could benefit from mentioning authentication, rate limits, or error handling to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'query ID' but doesn't elaborate on format or sourcing beyond what's in the schema ('visible in the query URL'). No additional parameter context is provided.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Run any Dune Analytics query') and resource ('return live onchain results by query ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'crypto_news' or 'token_price' by focusing on executing custom Dune queries rather than providing predefined data feeds.

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 includes explicit 'Use when' guidance: 'when you need deep onchain analytics from a specific Dune query — protocol revenue, user counts, custom metrics.' This clearly defines the appropriate context and distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide specific metrics like 'defi_tvl' or 'gas_tracker' without customization.

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