Begin a purchase. Provide the setup spec (see get_catalog for the schema; businessName, contactEmail and agentPurpose are required). Returns the x402 payment requirements to sign. No money moves and no order is created at this step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| greeting | No | ||
| knowledge | No | ||
| contactName | No | ||
| agentPurpose | Yes | ||
| businessName | Yes | ||
| contactEmail | Yes | ||
| hoursOfCover | No | ||
| transferNumber | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: no money moves, no order creation, and returns payment requirements. This covers the key side effects, though it omits details on permissions, idempotency, or error conditions.
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 concise sentences: first states the action and required inputs, second clarifies the outcome and lack of side effects. No redundant information, well-structured.
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?
Given 9 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain optional parameters, return value structure, error scenarios, or prerequisites beyond get_catalog, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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 parameters. It only mentions three required parameters (businessName, contactEmail, agentPurpose) but leaves six optional parameters (notes, greeting, etc.) entirely unexplained, providing insufficient guidance.
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 'Begin a purchase' and specifies the action: providing a setup spec to get payment requirements. It distinguishes from siblings (get_catalog, get_order_status, submit_payment) by noting that no order or money movement occurs at this step.
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 tells the agent when to use this tool ('Begin a purchase') and what to provide (setup spec), referencing get_catalog for the schema. It explains the outcome but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though siblings provide context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct role: browsing catalog, initiating purchase with challenge, submitting payment, and checking order status. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create, get, submit) with clear nouns (purchase_challenge, catalog, order_status, payment).
With 4 tools, the set is minimal and focused, exactly covering the purchase workflow without excess or insufficiency.
The tools cover the full purchase lifecycle: viewing catalog, creating a challenge, submitting payment, and tracking order status. No missing steps.