automaton-colony

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

It discloses important behaviors beyond annotations: the PaymentRequired error document when no payment is present, validation and asynchronous settlement, and the returned orderKey. Annotations only indicate non-read-only/open-world/non-idempotent, so this description adds substantial behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential payment constraint, followed by the two relevant behavioral paths. Every sentence earns its place, and the title adds clarity 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?

For a paid tool with no output schema, the description covers the required payment context, the error path, the asynchronous behavior, and the handoff to collect_flash_audit. It could mention the payment amount or where to find pricing/terms, but the core calling flow is clear.

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%, with the description already documenting both parameters, including the enum and pattern. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action: paying over x402 in USDC on Base to buy a flash audit. It also distinguishes itself from collect_flash_audit by stating it returns an orderKey to be used with that sibling, and the title reinforces the paid nature.

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 implies the usage sequence: send payment, get orderKey, then collect via collect_flash_audit. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over check_contract_free or flash_audit_terms, leaving the choice to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond these by adding operational constraints: rate limiting, a monthly quota, free usage, no wallet requirement, and the lack of a verdict/score in the output. This is valuable behavioral context not present in 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the free/no-wallet value proposition, the second lists the fact categories, and the third covers the operational constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what the tool returns (fact categories), the scope (Base addresses and B20 tokens), and key constraints (rate limit, monthly quota, free, no wallet). The only minor gap is the lack of any detail about the response format, but the fact list largely compensates.

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 schema already fully describes the address parameter including its pattern and mainnet scope. The description's mention of 'Base address' and 'B20 native tokens' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 description clearly states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('Base address'), then enumerates the exact categories of observed on-chain facts it returns: verified source, proxy detection, admin selectors, holder concentration, and B20 issuer powers. It also distinguishes itself from the flash-audit siblings by explicitly saying 'no verdict and no score'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need free, no-wallet, fact-only observations on a Base address. The phrase 'no verdict and no score' implicitly signals that for verdicts or scores one should use a different tool, but it never explicitly names the sibling flash-audit tools or states when to prefer them.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns status while settling, switches to the report JSON after DELIVERED, and is free. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 only three short phrases, each adding value: behavior during settlement, the delivered result, and polling cadence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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 simple polling tool with one parameter, no output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description covers the key behavior and timing. It could be slightly more complete by noting that orderKey comes from buy_flash_audit, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, orderKey. The description mentions 'an x402 order' but never explains where orderKey comes from, how it is validated, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent to infer the parameter meaning from the pattern alone.

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 returns the status of an x402 order and, once DELIVERED, the report JSON itself. This is a specific, actionable description that distinguishes it from siblings like buy_flash_audit and check_contract_free.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to poll every 10-15 seconds and implies use while an order is settling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the polling guidance is clear and useful.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by listing the returned fields and noting 'Free,' but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or the exact format of the PaymentRequired document. With the annotations carrying the main behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, the field list is compact, and 'Free' is a short relevant addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the returned content (amount, network, asset, payTo, request schema) and cost. It does not explicitly connect to the buy/collect workflow, but enough information is present to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. No additional parameter description is needed or provided.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Returns the x402 v2 PaymentRequired document for the paid Flash Report.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and enumerates the document's contents. This is distinct from the sibling tools buy/collect/check because it is explicitly about retrieving payment terms, not performing an action.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (buy_flash_audit, check_contract_free, collect_flash_audit). It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a selection condition. 'Free' hints at cost but not at when to choose this tool.

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