Get exact price, input schema, and REAL measured latency (from production paid calls) for any AI Rook endpoint BEFORE paying. Agents are risk-averse spenders — quote first, pay second. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | e.g. /api/order-flow |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that latency is 'REAL measured latency (from production paid calls)' and that the tool is 'Free', implying no paid endpoint execution. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or response format, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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?
Two punchy sentences front-load the key information: exact price, input schema, real latency, and cost-free usage. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.
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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It names the three key returned items (price, input schema, latency), explains the use case, and conveys the no-cost aspect, giving an agent enough to decide and use it 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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single endpoint parameter, which already includes an example. The tool description adds only that it works for 'any AI Rook endpoint', providing no new semantic detail beyond the schema.
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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Get exact price, input schema, and REAL measured latency' for 'any AI Rook endpoint' before paying. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like call_paid_endpoint by positioning it as the pre-payment quote tool.
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?
It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before paying' and 'quote first, pay second'. The 'Free' note reinforces it as a low-risk pre-check, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like call_paid_endpoint or state when not to use it beyond the implicit 'when ready to pay'.
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.
