Get payment instructions + live quote for any paid AI Rook endpoint. Returns exact USDC price, x402 payment flow (EIP-3009 sign → retry with X-Payment header), and current measured latency. Does NOT execute the endpoint — use this to plan, then pay via x402 at the endpoint URL. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | e.g. /api/market-pulse, /api/summarize, /api/code-review |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states return values (exact USDC price, payment flow, latency), the payment mechanism (EIP-3009 sign → retry with X-Payment header), that it does NOT execute, and that it is free. This goes well beyond minimal transparency, though it omits potential details like authentication requirements 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?
Description is three sentences total, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value (quote details, non-execution clarification, and cost/free note). No fluff or repetition.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context: what it returns, how payment works, that it does not execute, and that it's free. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the structure of the returned quote or potential errors, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to understand and 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 single parameter 'endpoint' has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, resulting in a baseline score 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?
Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get payment instructions + live quote for any paid AI Rook endpoint.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('payment instructions + live quote'), and explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by stating it does NOT execute the endpoint, only plans payment.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'use this to plan, then pay via x402 at the endpoint URL.' It also clarifies what it does not do (does not execute). It does not name alternative tools but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke 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.
Most tools are clearly distinct (list, preview, sign, escrow state), but get_quote and call_paid_endpoint both return pricing and latency for endpoints, which could cause misselection. The three preview tools are similar but target different endpoints.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (call_, get_, list_, preview_, sign_). No camelCase or mixed conventions.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of endpoint discovery, quoting, previewing, and escrow verification. Each tool covers a distinct need without bloat.
The server lacks tools for actually executing paid endpoints or creating escrow jobs, and there is no way to list escrow jobs by client or provider. It focuses on planning and verification, leaving execution to external mechanisms, which is a notable gap for a trading-focused server.
