x402ai summarize

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

Annotations only flag non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing real-money spend, the payment rail, per-payment and per-session caps, and an expected 5–16 s runtime. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before committing to a paid, slow call, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then cost/latency, then the parameter constraint. Every clause carries decision-relevant information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, timing, spend limits, and input bounds — enough to call it safely. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned summary, which matters slightly given there is no output schema.

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% and the single `input` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 3000-char bound. The description restates the max length but adds no new semantics, so the baseline applies.

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 opening "Summarize text" states a concrete verb and resource, and the sibling set (embed, ask, health, inspect) makes the intended distinction reasonably obvious. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Cost ($0.02 USDC on Base) and latency (5–16 s) give strong signals for deciding whether to call this now, but the description never says when to prefer it over `ask` or `embed`, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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