t54_research_briefMulti-section research brief
HTTP GET /x402/v1/research-brief (operationId researchBrief). Paid routes may return HTTP 402 until the x402 broker settles on the configured rail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Subject line for the multi-section research brief (max 256 chars). | |
| context_note | No | Optional extra context, URLs, or constraints for the brief (max 2000 chars). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "_dyn_researchBriefOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullInput schema / properties / context_note / descriptionPrevious value: -"Query parameter `context` for operation `researchBrief` (GET /x402/v1/research-brief). max length 2000."New value: +"Optional extra context, URLs, or constraints for the brief (max 2000 chars)."Input schema / properties / topic / descriptionPrevious value: -"Query parameter `topic` for operation `researchBrief` (GET /x402/v1/research-brief). max length 256."New value: +"Subject line for the multi-section research brief (max 256 chars)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the HTTP 402 payment behavior and endpoint details, which are useful beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only, and the description does not contradict them. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns or any side effects, so transparency is limited.
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 short but starts with a redundant restatement of the title. The useful endpoint and payment information is buried after the redundant first line. It is not waste-free, but it is compact.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only mentions the HTTP endpoint and payment behavior. The purpose is implied by the title and parameter descriptions, but the description leaves the agent uncertain about the actual output format or structure of the 'multi-section research brief'. This is incomplete for a tool with no output schema.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'topic' and 'context_note', so the description need not add param details. It does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, matching 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 repeats the title 'Multi-section research brief' without an explicit verb or action. It provides the HTTP GET endpoint and operationId, but does not state what the tool does (e.g., generates/retrieves a research brief) in actionable terms. This fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like t54_structured_query or t54_agent_commerce_data.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The only conditional note is about HTTP 402 payments, which is a prerequisite/error condition, not a use-case guideline. There is no mention of competing tools or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.