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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about pricing being in USDC per call and the existence of free guide pages, which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not mention response structure, pagination, or any other behavioral details. With the annotation providing the main safety info, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded ('The full alpha402x catalog'), and every clause adds meaningful detail (product types, prices, URLs, free pages, currency). No redundant phrases or 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?
For a parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the content, the payment currency, and the inclusion of URLs and free pages. It lacks an explicit note about response format or whether the catalog is paginated, but given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation, those are minor gaps. The description stands on its own adequately.
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 the schema trivially covers everything. Per the guideline, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist; it simply states the tool requires no input. No additional meaning is needed beyond what the empty schema implies.
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 specific verb 'list' and the resource 'the full alpha402x catalog', enumerating the exact product types (empirical multibagger profiles, WACC builds, 10-Q extractions, quarterly cards) and what is included (prices, URLs, free guide pages). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_10q_coverage or get_product_terms, which serve different specific purposes.
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 the tool is for viewing the entire catalog, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or when not to. An agent can infer 'use this to list everything' but there is no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance. Sibling names hint at differences, but the description does not reference them.
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: coverage checking, product listing, payment terms retrieval, and payment process guidance. There is no semantic overlap; an agent can unambiguously select the right tool for each task.
Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (check_10q_coverage, get_product_terms, list_research), but 'how_to_pay_x402' deviates by being a phrase rather than a verb_noun structure. The inconsistency is minor, but it breaks the otherwise predictable pattern.
With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose—providing discovery, coverage checks, terms, and payment guidance for x402 research products. Each tool contributes essential distinct functionality, making this an appropriate and lean surface.
The tool set fully covers the informational needs for interacting with the research catalog: enumerating products, checking coverage, retrieving payment terms, and understanding the payment process. No critical gaps are apparent for its stated purpose.