One paper in full detail by DOI, arXiv id or OpenAlex id: all authors with institutions and ORCID, abstract, venue, open-access links, topics with fields, citation count and citations per year, references count. Price: $0.003 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doi | No | DOI, e.g. 10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762 | |
| arxiv | No | arXiv id, e.g. 1706.03762 | |
| openalex | No | OpenAlex work id, e.g. W2626778328 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does carry real behavioral weight: it discloses the paid x402/Base settlement model and the $0.003 per-call cost, plus the full shape of the payload. It stops short of stating error/not-found behavior or whether multiple identifiers may be supplied at once.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and lookup keys, with pricing appended last. The return-field enumeration is long but justified because there is no output schema to describe the payload.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole carrier of behavior, and it covers cost, payment rail, and return contents well. Missing details are identifier precedence and failure semantics, which matter for a paid call.
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% and each key already has an example, so the description only needs to reinforce. The 'or' hints that one identifier suffices but leaves precedence ambiguous when several are passed (no required fields, additionalProperties false).
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?
States a specific verb and scope ('One paper in full detail') plus the three lookup keys, and the name/description pairing clearly distinguishes it from research_papers (search) and research_related_papers (related). An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the identifier-based framing signals 'fetch a single known paper', while research_papers presumably handles discovery. The description never explicitly says when to prefer this over its siblings or what to do if you only have a title.
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.