Order a $399 x402 endpoint audit

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: calling the tool is free and moves no funds, it returns an HTTP 402 exact-scheme challenge with a per-order unique USDC amount on Base, the purchase only completes on payment of the exact unrounded amount, and orders expire within 24h. The double-payment hazard and the timeout-recovery procedure are both disclosed, which is exactly the context annotations would otherwise have to supply.

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 information is front-loaded: cost and non-charge guarantee come before the mechanics, and the operational warnings close it out. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries a distinct fact (price, no-charge, return shape, unique amount, expiration, polling, no double-pay), with only mild repetition between the COST label and the later 'real $399 purchase' sentence.

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 annotations, so the description must explain both the response and the safety profile, and it does: it names the returned 402 challenge, the unique amount, the plain-language instructions, and the order id. Combined with the payment and polling lifecycle, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and safely.

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 both parameters (target and email) are already documented in the schema, including that target may be a URL or a wallet address. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond that, mainly the 48-business-hour delivery window tied to the email parameter. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a concrete verb and artifact: "Creates a PAYABLE ORDER for a $399 signed, human-reviewed audit of an x402 endpoint or receiving wallet." It names the deliverable, the audited dimensions, the price, and the delivery channel, which lets an agent separate it instantly from the sibling get_audit_order_status (status polling) and get_network_decomposition.

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?

It states explicitly when to call (to buy the audit), when not to worry (unpaid orders are harmless and expire in 24h), and the exact follow-up sequence: pay the quoted amount, then poll get_audit_order_status with the order id, and poll before re-paying if a submission times out. It also flags the operator-confirmation condition for spend policies, which is the one real prerequisite for this tool.

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