Bazaar Scout: independently measured health rankings of x402 services (uptime, latency, payment-terms validity). Query: limit, network, tag. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; GET /api/scout/rankings]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Filter by catalog tag. Optional. | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-200, default 50). Optional. | |
| network | No | Filter by network, e.g. eip155:8453. Optional. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It mentions 'independently measured' and 'health rankings' but omits behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or consequences of invalid parameters. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 a single concise sentence with a succinct bracketed note for metadata. It is front-loaded with the core function and immediately usable.
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 description covers the purpose and parameters but lacks explanation of the return format (e.g., structure of rankings). Given no output schema, this is a gap. However, the three optional parameters are adequately described.
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 100% (all three parameters are described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 provides 'independently measured health rankings of x402 services' with specific metrics (uptime, latency, payment-terms validity). It distinguishes from siblings like scout_service by specifying the ranking nature and paid aspect.
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 notes it's a paid tool with price $0.005 and lists query parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scout_service) or provide exclusions.
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.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.