card_listList cards owned by the paying wallet: status, last4, balance (never full numbers — those are per-card via card_get). 0.01 USDC ownership proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | base64 x402 payment payload (X-PAYMENT); omit on first call to receive payment instructions |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the 0.01 USDC ownership proof and the privacy behavior of never returning full numbers, which are valuable behavioral insights beyond the raw purpose.
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 action and resource, followed by necessary caveats. No fluff or 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 simple list tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: return fields, privacy limitation, and payment requirement. Minor ambiguity around whether the 0.01 USDC is a recurring fee, but overall sufficient.
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%, so the param is well-documented. The description adds meaning by explaining the payment payload as a 0.01 USDC ownership proof, clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's generic 'payment payload' label.
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 lists cards owned by the paying wallet, with specific fields (status, last4, balance). It also distinguishes itself from card_get by explicitly excluding full numbers.
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 provides clear context on what the tool returns and mentions card_get for full numbers, giving a strong usage hint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over card_status or other siblings.
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 targets a distinct resource and action, clearly separated by domain prefixes (card_, email_, phone_, tiktok_). The only potential overlap is phone_read_messages vs wait_for_otp, but wait_for_otp is specifically for OTP extraction and is described as a replacement for hand-rolled polling, making the boundary clear. Status pollers are also domain-specific (card_status, tiktok_connect_status, tiktok_operation_status) and not ambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention with domain-first prefixes (e.g., card_buy, email_send, tiktok_post, phone_temp_number). Even less common names like wait_for_otp and i402_plan are descriptive and stylistically consistent. There are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
33 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server covers a broad multi-domain purpose (cards, compute, domains, email, phone, TikTok, Twitter, orchestration). Each domain has a focused and coherent set, so the count feels justified rather than bloated. It is slightly high, but not excessively so.
Coverage is solid for email, phone, and TikTok, with full lifecycle operations (create, read, extend, delete/cancel where applicable). However, there are notable gaps: compute has only deploy (no list/stop/delete), domains have only check/register (no list/delete), and Twitter has only post (no read/manage). These gaps could force agents to work around missing resource management.