Venice x402 Top-up Requirements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly notes that steps 2-3 occur outside the server, clarifying the tool's limited scope. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the wallet_address is invalid or whether the requirements vary by wallet — a minor gap, but the main behavioral trait (it's a read-only requirements fetch) is clear from the 'fetch' framing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and zero wasted words. The parenthetical note about steps 2-3 is efficiently packed into one clause without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's enum of fetched fields (network, USDC token address, receiver wallet, min amount) partially compensates by telling the agent what to expect in the return. But the tool is part of a multi-step x402 flow and lacks any context about authentication, rate limits, or the relationship between x402 top-up and the sibling x402 balance/transactions tools. It's adequate but not fully complete for a multi-step financial flow.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It explains nothing about 'amount_usd' (optional) or 'wallet_address' semantics beyond what the schema pattern shows. The description names the output fields but doesn't clarify how wallet_address relates to the returned requirements or whether amount_usd affects the response. With 0% coverage and 2 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 tool fetches step-1 top-up requirements specifying exactly what fields it provides (network, USDC token address, receiver wallet, min amount). The verb 'fetch' is specific, the resource is clearly named, and it effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling x402 tools (balance, transactions) which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly explains that steps 2 and 3 require a wallet and happen outside this MCP server, clearly scoping when this tool is appropriate. This is an explicit when/when-not framing that prevents the agent from attempting to complete the full top-up flow through this tool.

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