sandbox_wizard_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: the envelope schema is derived from live verify code, /verify is real while /simulate is a dry-run, and 'No USDC ever moves in the sandbox.' That safety disclosure is the single most important behavioral fact for an agent. It omits rate limits, auth requirements, and whether the counters are cached, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with '[FREE]' and the URL, which is useful, but the middle is promotional filler ('live honest analytics counters,' 'so it never drifts,' 'paste-a-signature') that adds tone rather than selection value. The genuinely decision-relevant facts (no USDC moves, returns counters and URL) could be stated in two sentences instead of a dense paragraph.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description must explain what comes back, and it does: counters for payloads built, verify pass/fail, simulate pass, and 7-day windows, plus the wizard URL. Combined with the explicit no-funds-move guarantee, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only the exact response shape remains unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly introduces no parameters, consistent with the empty 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 identifies a specific artifact (the x402 Payment Sandbox Wizard) and states what the call returns: live analytics counters (payloads built, verify pass/fail, simulate pass, 7-day windows) plus the wizard URL. That is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like sandbox_snapshot and sandbox_simulate, though the purpose is buried inside a long flow narrative rather than stated in a leading verb+resource sentence.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is framed as an entry point that takes a developer 'from blank page to verified, simulated settlement,' which suggests onboarding use. However, it never explicitly says when to call this instead of sandbox_snapshot, sandbox_simulate, get_x402_scaffold, or check_payment_readiness, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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