Canonical SPDX license record by identifier: full name, OSI/FSF approval status, deprecation flag and reference URL, from the official SPDX license list. $0.001 per call via x402 (USDC on Base); response includes a provenance chain and an Ed25519 attestation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| payment | No | Encoded x402 X-PAYMENT header value. Omit to receive the payment requirements (free quote). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the $0.001 per-call cost, the x402 payment mechanism via USDC on Base, and that responses include a provenance chain and Ed25519 attestation. This goes well beyond a simple lookup description, though it could further clarify failure or edge-case behavior.
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?
The description is two sentences of dense, relevant information with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and returned data, then adds payment and attestation details. Every clause earns its place.
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?
The description covers what the tool returns (license metadata plus provenance and attestation), how much it costs, and the payment context. Combined with the schema, an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the response. No output schema is provided, but the description explicitly lists the key return components.
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 schema only describes the payment parameter; the 'id' parameter has no description. The tool description clarifies that 'id' is an SPDX license identifier, which adds meaning, but it does not provide examples, case-sensitivity, or formatting hints. Since the schema coverage is only 50%, the description partially compensates but leaves room for interpretation.
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 states a clear verb-like operation ('lookup') and specific resource ('Canonical SPDX license record by identifier'), and enumerates the returned fields (full name, OSI/FSF approval status, deprecation flag, reference URL). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools due to the explicit SPDX license focus.
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 when this tool should be used: whenever an agent needs authoritative SPDX license data by identifier. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, but among the listed siblings none overlap with SPDX license lookup, so the intended context is reasonably clear.
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 targets a unique dataset and operation: lookups by ID, summary aggregations, time series, or search. Even tools with similar descriptors (e.g., FMRArea lookup vs. search, FDA vs. CPSC recalls) are clearly separated by resource and output type.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a `domain_resource_kind` pattern such as `fda_recall_lookup` and `cpsc_recall_monthly_summary`. A few outliers like `bank_profile_lite`, `cpi_us_monthly`, and `us_debt_to_penny` break the dominant suffix convention but remain readable.
24 tools is on the high side for a single server, but this appears to be an aggregator of many independent public datasets, so each tool represents a distinct data source and has a purpose. It is slightly above the ideal ergonomic range but not bloated or redundant.
As a read-only attested-data lookup service, the set provides good coverage with both point lookups and aggregate summaries across many domains. The main gaps are the lack of a catalog/discovery endpoint and search support for most identifier-based lookups, but agents can work around those with known identifiers.