Free. Lists AGORA Omega paid tools, prices (USDC via x402) and networks.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "agora_catalog"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add real behavioral context beyond the schema: the call is free, and payment for the listed tools is in USDC via x402. It does not state that the operation is read-only/no-side-effect, nor describe the shape or volume of the returned catalog.
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 tight sentence with the most decision-relevant fact ('Free.') front-loaded. No filler and nothing restated from the name.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema catalog tool the description covers what the tool returns and the cost/payment model, which is what an agent needs to select it. Minor gaps remain: no mention of networks covered or the response format.
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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?
States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('AGORA Omega paid tools, prices and networks'), which is clearly distinct from the check/audit/verify siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the catalog role is unambiguous.
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?
Implied usage: call this to discover what paid tools and networks exist and what they cost. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, and no statement of prerequisites, though for a zero-argument discovery tool this is largely self-evident.
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.