x402ai health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the call is free, requires no key, and surfaces local session spend. It does not discuss rate limits or response shape, but for a health probe the added context is meaningful.

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 three short fragments with no wasted explanation. It conveys cost, auth, the endpoint checked, and the local spend behavior efficiently.

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?

With no parameters, annotations covering read-only/open-world behavior, and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it: endpoint, cost, auth, and local spend display. It could clarify exactly what 'local session spend' returns, but that is a minor gap for a simple health/status 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no parameter semantics burden; the baseline score of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning.

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?

States a concrete action: check GET /health on api.x402ai.dev, plus a secondary output of showing local session spend. The dual purpose is slightly unusual, but an agent can identify the tool as a health/status probe with spend visibility. Sibling differentiation is not critical because embed, summarize, ask, and inspect are unrelated.

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?

Provides some usage context with 'Free' and 'No key needed', implying a low-friction diagnostic call. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus inspect or other alternatives, nor does it state exclusions. Usage remains implied rather than clearly guided.

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