t54_structured_queryConstitution-safe short LLM answer
Listing-friendly GET with q query parameter.
HTTP GET /x402/v1/query (operationId structuredQuery). Paid routes may return HTTP 402 until the x402 broker settles on the configured rail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Natural-language question for a short constitution-safe answer (max 512 chars). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond that by specifying the HTTP GET method, the listing-friendly nature, and the paid-route behavior that may return HTTP 402 until the x402 broker settles. This is valuable context consistent with the `readOnlyHint: false` annotation, though it could disclose more about auth or rate limits.
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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint and method. The only minor flaw is that the opening sentence repeats the title verbatim, adding little value, but otherwise every sentence contributes useful information.
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 single-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description covers the route, method, payment-related behavior, and the nature of the answer. It does not spell out the exact response payload, but the title and parameter description provide enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter `q`, including a descriptive explanation and a max length. The tool description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies a GET endpoint that accepts a natural-language `q` parameter and returns a short, constitution-safe LLM answer. It includes the route, operationId, and enough context to distinguish it from sibling tools like `t54_research_brief` or `t54_constitution_audit_lite`, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns'.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'listing-friendly' and a payment/402 caveat, but does not state when to prefer this over related tools or when not to use it.
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.
The tools split into contract security (audit, monitor, triage) and marketplace API (t54_*) categories, each with distinct purposes. However, t54_x402_request is a generic executor that could overlap with specific t54_* tools, though the description advises preferring per-operation tools when available. Overall, most tools are clearly differentiated.
Two naming conventions exist: contract_* (verb_noun, snake_case) and t54_* (prefix with varying patterns like t54_get_health, t54_hello_ping, t54_agent_commerce_data). The lack of a unified prefix or consistent verb/noun ordering across all tools lowers consistency significantly.
With 12 tools, the server covers both contract security and marketplace operations without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a distinct role, and the count is appropriate for a specialized marketplace with auxiliary security features.
The contract tools provide auditing, monitoring, and triage—core lifecycle coverage. The marketplace tools include health, listing, and specific data endpoints. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no unsubscribe for monitoring, no user account management), but the overall surface is well-matched to the server's stated purpose.