get_full_ideaGet the complete idea markdown — non-exclusive, the idea stays listed. Costs $0.003 USDC via x402. This tool returns the exact payment instructions; settle with an x402 client against the HTTP endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Idea slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-destructive nature ('non-exclusive, the idea stays listed') and the payment requirement. However, it does not specify behavior on payment failure or rate limits, which is reasonable for a simple read tool.
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, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second covers payment and instructions. Very concise and front-loaded.
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 explains the payment flow but does not specify the output format or the two-step process (returns payment instructions, not idea directly). An output schema is absent, so the description could be more complete regarding the return value.
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%, with the only parameter 'slug' described as 'Idea slug'. The description adds no additional detail about the parameter, 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'complete idea markdown', and specifies it is non-exclusive, distinguishing it from siblings like 'buy_exclusive' and 'get_idea_teaser'.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to get the full idea) and includes payment instructions. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the sibling names imply alternatives.
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 purpose: listing, teaser, sample, full purchase, exclusive buyout, and payment guide. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_ideas, get_full_idea). However, 'how_to_pay' deviates from the pattern, causing minor inconsistency.
6 tools cover the core workflow (discover, preview, purchase, payment help) without being excessive or insufficient for the marketplace domain.
Covers the full consumption lifecycle (list, sample, buy, exclusive). Lacks search/filter functionality but no critical gaps for the stated purpose.