normalize_x402

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds that the output is a canonical mandate, which is useful context but does not disclose error handling or validation behavior.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. Front-loads the action and outcome.

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 the open input schema (additionalProperties: true) and existence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level transformation purpose. However, it lacks details on what constitutes a valid x402 payload, which an agent might need to construct inputs.

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 schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds only 'An x402 payment payload.', which is generic and adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 action (normalize), the source format (Coinbase x402 payment requirement/receipt), and the output (canonical mandate). It distinguishes itself from sibling normalize_ap2 by naming the specific source protocol.

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 implies this tool is a prerequisite for other tools like check_mandate, to_pain001, etc., by mentioning 'the other tools accept'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over normalize_ap2 or provide any exclusions.

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