email_read_messagesRead decrypted messages from an inbox you own (payment wallet must match the inbox). Costs 0.02 USDC, paid per-action via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size (default 50, max 200) | |
| cursor | No | id of the last message from the previous page | |
| payment | No | base64 x402 payment payload (X-PAYMENT); omit on first call to receive payment instructions | |
| inbox_id | Yes | Inbox id returned by email_create_inbox |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the per-action cost (0.02 USDC via x402) and the ownership/payment wallet matching constraint. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, return shape, or error handling, leaving some behavioral traits unspecified.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only necessary information (ownership and cost). No filler or redundant details.
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 straightforward read tool, the description covers purpose, ownership, and cost effectively. The schema fills in pagination and payment instructions. It does not explicitly state return format or error conditions, but 'read decrypted messages' implies the return content, making this sufficient overall.
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 descriptions already cover all four parameters, providing clear meaning for limit, cursor, payment, and inbox_id. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.
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 reads decrypted messages from an owned inbox, using the specific verb 'read' and resource 'decrypted messages'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like email_send and phone_read_messages by specifying inbox ownership and message type.
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 usage (read messages from your own inbox) and notes an ownership prerequisite, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like phone_read_messages or state when not to use the tool. The cost and payment condition are provided but not framed as usage guidance.
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.