Palmyr

i402 plan (intent resolver)

i402_plan

State an intent, get a priced execution plan. The i402 orchestrator turns a natural-language outcome into an ordered list of x402 calls your agent signs and runs. Costs 0.10 USDC per plan, paid per-action via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`intent`	Yes	Natural-language outcome, e.g. 'register a .com and set up email on it'
`params`	No	Optional structured parameters for the intent
`payment`	No	base64 x402 payment payload (X-PAYMENT); omit on first call to receive payment instructions
`quality`	No	Optional quality hint, e.g. 'fast' \| 'best'
`budget_usdc`	Yes	Max total USDC to spend across the whole plan
`constraints`	No
`deadline_seconds`	No
`allow_budget_exceeded`	No	Return an executable plan even if it exceeds budget_usdc

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses key behavior: the cost per plan, per-action x402 payment, and the output as an ordered list of x402 calls. It does not mention the first-call payment handshake or any side effects, but core behavioral expectations are transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition and followed by essential cost and execution details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides a solid high-level mental model: input intent, output ordered x402 calls, cost and payment model. It does not detail the payment handshake or plan format, but the schema covers the payment parameter, and the overall picture is reasonably complete for an orchestrator tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers 75% of the 8 parameters, including descriptions for intent, payment, budget_usdc, and allow_budget_exceeded. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond reinforcing the intent and budget concepts, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('get') and a clear resource ('priced execution plan'), then elaborates that it turns natural-language outcomes into an ordered list of x402 calls. This clearly distinguishes the orchestrator role from sibling tools that perform direct actions like domain_register or email_send.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use it: when the agent has a natural-language outcome that needs to be broken into a sequence of x402 actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for single-action tasks, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

All Palmyr tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

i402 plan (intent resolver)

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources