list_researchThe full alpha402x catalog: every payable research product (empirical multibagger profiles, fiscal-year-end WACC builds, 10-Q highlight extractions, quarterly quantitative and qualitative cards) with prices, payable URLs, and free guide pages. All prices are USDC per call over x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds beyond that by specifying that the response covers every payable product, includes prices and payable URLs, and clarifies that all prices are USDC per call over x402. That is useful behavioral/commercial context; pagination or response shape is not disclosed, but it is acceptable for a simple list operation.
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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence states the scope first ('The full alpha402x catalog'), then enumerates the product categories and closes with the pricing detail. Every clause adds relevant information and there is 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?
With no output schema, the description needs to convey what the response will contain, and it does: products, prices, payable URLs, and free guide pages. It could go slightly further by describing the response format or field structure, but for a zero-parameter read-only catalog listing this is sufficiently 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially clear and the baseline is 4. There is no schema to enrich and no parameter ambiguity to resolve.
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 names the resource ('alpha402x catalog'), picks a specific verb ('list'), and enumerates the content areas (empirical multibagger profiles, WACC builds, 10-Q extractions, quarterly cards). This makes it readily distinguishable from sibling tools like check_10q_coverage or get_product_terms.
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 intended use is implied strongly: an agent that needs an overview of payable research products with prices should call this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference rather than guidance.
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: checking EDGAR coverage, retrieving payment terms, explaining payment flow, and listing the catalog. There is no overlap or ambiguity among them.
Three tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_10q_coverage, get_product_terms, list_research) while 'how_to_pay_x402' deviates, using a phrase instead of a consistent verb-first structure. Minor inconsistency but still readable.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose—providing product catalog, coverage checks, and payment information. No unnecessary tools, and the count feels appropriate for the domain.
The surface covers the essential operations for the server's stated purpose: listing products, checking coverage, retrieving terms, and explaining the payment process. No obvious gaps; it fulfills its informational role completely.