Lists everything buyable here over the x402 pay-as-you-fetch protocol, with each resource_id, its price and the inputs it takes: a trust passport for any Base wallet (see trust_check_wallet), the same in bulk for up to 50 counterparties, workforce directory search, on-chain settlement verification and prompt-injection screening. Needs no account, and neither does paying. Call this before data_buy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool requires no account, that it lists items with resource_id/price/inputs, and implies a read-only operation. It also explains the protocol (x402) and references trust_check_wallet for related details. It doesn't mention pagination or return format, but the description is still substantive.
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 convey the full scope: what the tool lists, the protocol, the data fields, the account requirement, and a usage hook. There is no filler or repetition. Every clause adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states the resource scope, the items included (resource_id, price, inputs), the protocol, authentication needs, and how it fits with sibling tools. It even points to trust_check_wallet for more context on one input type. There are no major gaps.
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, and the empty input schema covers 100% of parameters. Per rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Lists everything buyable here over the x402 pay-as-you-fetch protocol.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting 'Call this before data_buy' and referencing trust_check_wallet. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.
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 gives clear usage context: 'Call this before data_buy' establishes the workflow. It also mentions the no-account requirement, which is relevant for use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternative listing tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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 is scoped to a distinct resource and action within its domain (budget, contract, deal, escrow, hiring, wallet, workroom, trust). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like contract_confirm_delivery and escrow_confirm_delivery are clearly differentiated by context. A model can reliably select the correct tool for a given task.
Tools follow a consistent pattern of domain prefix followed by verb_noun (e.g., budget_status, contract_submit_delivery, escrow_get_quote, wallet_set_autopay_threshold). The naming is uniform across all 42 tools, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb placement.
With 42 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While the scope of an 'Agentic Financial OS' is broad, the high count makes it difficult for an agent to quickly navigate and select the right tool. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple get/list tools per domain, documentation tools like *how_it_works that could be merged). The count exceeds the recommended range and feels excessive.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of financial operations: budget management, negotiation (deal_open/propose/accept/cancel), contract creation and delivery with verification, escrow with payment protection, hiring workflows, wallet operations, trust checks, and a marketplace for data/services. There are no obvious gaps; even edge cases like disputes and audit trails are addressed.