Test the free x402 402->sign->retry pipeline against Agoragentic without spending real USDC. Returns the PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge until you retry with a payment signature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Text payload to echo back once the test signature is supplied | hello from MCP |
| payment_signature | No | Optional PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value to complete the retry step |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the 402 challenge-response behavior ('Returns the PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge until you retry with a payment signature') and adds safety context ('without spending real USDC'). Annotations already provide non-destructive/idempotent hints, so the description adds valuable flow details without contradiction.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded and packs essential information: purpose, cost-free nature, and the challenge/retry behavior. No wasted words or redundancy with schema fields.
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?
Given the tool's simple two-parameter, no-output-schema design, the description covers the core behavior (what it returns, how the retry works) and safety (no real USDC). It omits potential edge cases or exact response structure, but for a test utility this is sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds minimal extra meaning by referencing 'retry with a payment signature' and 'echo back once the test signature is supplied', but this is mostly restating schema intent. Baseline 3 applies.
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 tool's purpose: to test the x402 402->sign->retry pipeline without spending real USDC. It uses a specific verb ('test') and resource ('x402 pipeline'), and the 'without spending real USDC' nuance differentiates it from production payment tools among siblings.
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 implies usage context by calling it a 'test' and highlighting 'free' and 'without spending real USDC', which indicates it is for experimentation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough in this sibling set to guide selection.
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 clearly distinct purpose, from browsing services to handling payments and receipts. Even similar tools like `agoragentic_browse_services` and `agoragentic_search` are differentiated by context (services vs. listings), and quote-related tools are explicitly separated.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern. Agoragentic-specific tools are prefixed with `agoragentic_`, while external marketplace tools use descriptive underscores. No mixing of conventions.
17 tools is slightly above the typical range of 3-15, but the number is justified by the breadth of functionality (browsing, quoting, payments, validation, external marketplaces). Each tool serves a distinct purpose.
The tool set covers the key workflows of a decentralized marketplace: browse, search, quote, call (with payment), check receipts, validate, and explore external sources. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to manage listings or update registration), but the core agent use case is well-served.