Pay 49 USDC on Base for the Agents Get Paid Kit. Same price as https://agentsgetpaidmore.com/#pay. Not auto-income. SPIRAL / in-fleet = $0 (do not charge).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| quoteId | No | Opaque quote handle from get_quote. No PII. | |
| tenantId | No | ||
| agentName | No | Buyer agent name for the receipt |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the financial nature, exact cost, network, and important pricing exceptions. The warning 'Not auto-income' is particularly useful because it prevents an agent from misrepresenting the kit as a source of automatic income. It stops short of describing post-payment effects or irreversibility, but the core monetary behavior is explicit.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action/price, the price parity confirmation, and the critical exceptions. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.
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 covers price, network, and pricing exclusions well, and the schema fills in some parameter semantics. However, there is no mention of the return value/receipt, no clear required parameter guidance despite required being zero, and no explicit instruction to obtain a quoteId from get_quote before calling. These gaps make it adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Only half of the parameters have schema descriptions, and the tool description provides no additional meaning for any parameter. It never clarifies what 'note' or 'tenantId' are for, nor does it explain the relationship between the 49 USDC price and the quoteId. The schema's mention of quoteId and agentName helps, but the undocumented parameters remain ambiguous.
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 states a specific action ('Pay 49 USDC on Base') against a specific resource ('the Agents Get Paid Kit'), with an exact price and network. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_quote and get_spend_status, which are quote and status tools.
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 gives clear exclusion cases: 'Not auto-income' and 'SPIRAL / in-fleet = $0 (do not charge)'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_quote or get_spend_status, beyond implying that a paid kit purchase is the goal.
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 action: purchasing, quoting, spending status, bug reporting, CAPTCHA solving, and page unlocking. buy_kit and get_quote are related but clearly separated by quote vs. purchase, and solve_captcha vs unlock_page are distinct paid services.
All six tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: buy_kit, get_quote, get_spend_status, report_issue, solve_captcha, unlock_page. The naming is predictable and easy to group by action.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for a focused monetization/unlock server. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or feature bloat.
The set covers the core payment flow (quote, buy, spend monitoring), adds support via report_issue, and provides the two paid services (CAPTCHA solving and page unlock). Minor gaps like transaction history or refund handling are not critical for the advertised MVP scope.