x402_get_budget

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It makes clear this is a non-mutating inspection scoped to Base L2 and USDC, but says nothing about whether it requires an authenticated account/address context, whether values are cached or eventually consistent, or rate limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the metrics, the asset, and the chain. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description effectively lists the return categories (limits, hourly/daily spends, remaining allowance), which is enough for an agent to decide to call it. Only the account/auth context and freshness guarantees are unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 4. The description usefully enumerates what the (implicit) account-scoped read covers, which is the only semantic content available.

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 specific verb ('Inspect') and concrete resource set (spending limits, rolling hourly/daily spends, remaining USDC allowances on Base L2). It is clearly a read/inspection operation, distinguishable from the mutating siblings x402_safe_tx and x402_fetch, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check before spending, but the description never says when to call it versus x402_fetch or x402_audit_log, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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