Can I use this URL for RAG, summarize it, train on it or index it? Check observed RSL declarations and machine-readable usage/licensing terms before processing supported content. Use acqpath_capabilities first; acqpath_rights_quote prepares a private quote. Stable HTTP: https://api.getacqpath.com/v1/rights/preflight — no AcqPath account or API key. Fresh 0.02 USDC, deep 0.05 USDC on Base; verified signed offer authoritative. Public payment uses acqpath-request-binding nonce support or the configured AcqPath SIWX adapter for official TS/Python x402 signers. Generic zero-config clients remain unsupported; mainnet paid E2E is unverified. No paid crawl purpose. UNKNOWN is not permission; no license, legal clearance or legal advice. The legacy acqpath_quote routing tool is disabled. Keep private claims outside model context. Integrate: https://developers.getacqpath.com/from-glama
Scored across 3 tools
acqpath_capabilities is clearly distinct, but acpath_quote and acqpath_rights_quote could be confused because both return quote-like claim tokens and emphasize no payment. Descriptions distinguish them (purchase plan vs RSL declaration report), but the name similarity introduces minor ambiguity.
All tools use the consistent acqpath_ prefix with lowercase snake_case resource names. The pattern is uniform and easy to infer.
Three tools is within the well-scoped range, and each tool covers a distinct preflight operation: capabilities, estimated quote, and rights report. No redundancy or bloat.
The coverage of the no-payment preflight workflow is solid: discover capabilities, obtain a purchase-plan quote, and produce a signed rights report. A slight gap is the absence of any status/history or cancellation tool, though the narrow scope makes this mostly acceptable.
List operator-approved interchangeable capabilities; no payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'no payment' adds useful context that the operation has no financial side effect. 'Operator-approved' also clarifies the source of the data. However, the description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, or what happens when no capabilities exist.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every clause contributes meaning: 'operator-approved' defines scope, 'interchangeable capabilities' identifies the resource, and 'no payment' signals expected side effects.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the resource, and the payment-related expectation. The only minor gap is that it does not describe what the returned capabilities list looks like, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation keep this gap small.
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 input schema is empty, so the description carries no burden to explain parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing for the description to add beyond the structured schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('operator-approved interchangeable capabilities'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling tools, but the 'no payment' note helps set expectations that this is an informational listing rather than a financial transaction.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling quote tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which capabilities listing is or is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get an estimated cheaper purchase plan for a verified contract. No payment is made. Quote claim token is sensitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purpose | No | ||
| contract | Yes | ||
| capability | Yes | ||
| max_latency_ms | No | ||
| max_total_micro | Yes | ||
| baseline_provider | Yes | ||
| require_declared_rights | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are unhelpful (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It adds valuable context: 'No payment is made' clarifying that this is a non-monetary action, and 'Quote claim token is sensitive' warning about the output's contents. However, it does not specify whether any persistent state changes occur (e.g., saving a quote) or how the token should be handled beyond sensitivity, leaving some side effects untransparent.
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 extremely concise: three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose. The primary action is front-loaded ('Get an estimated cheaper purchase plan'), followed by the key guarantee ('No payment is made') and a critical security note ('Quote claim token is sensitive'). No padding or redundant phrasing.
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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship between input parameters, what the returned quote plan looks like, how the sensitive token should be handled, or any prerequisite beyond a verified contract. The absence of an output schema places more burden on the description, and this description does not fill that void. An agent would struggle to know what the tool returns and how the parameters mutually constrain each other.
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 description coverage is 0% and no parameter details are provided in the description. The description only references 'contract' indirectly through 'verified contract', but does not clarify the purpose of the 7 parameters (capability, max_total_micro, baseline_provider, etc.). The agent gets no beyond-schema meaning and cannot determine what values to fill or what effect each parameter has.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('estimated cheaper purchase plan') with a clear qualifier ('for a verified contract') and an explicit behavioral note ('No payment is made'). The phrase 'purchase plan' distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'acqpath_rights_quote' (which implies a rights-related quote) and 'acqpath_capabilities' (which clearly lists capabilities).
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 used when the user has a verified contract and wants a cheaper quote ('for a verified contract', 'estimated cheaper purchase plan'), but it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mentions of alternatives such as acqpath_rights_quote or acqpath_capabilities. There is no direct comparison between this tool and its siblings, so the agent must infer application from the resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Prepare a bounded signed report of observed RSL declarations; no payment occurs. This is not a license. Keep the returned claim token private.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| geo | No | Caller-supplied geographical context. This is not independently verified location. | |
| tier | No | fresh | |
| purpose | Yes | ||
| resource | Yes | HTTPS resource on an explicitly reviewed origin; no query, fragment, credentials, IP literal, encoded slash or redirect. | |
| user_class | No | commercial | |
| max_total_micro | Yes | Exact integer micro-USDC budget. | |
| freshness_seconds | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no payment occurs, it is not a license, and the returned claim token must be kept private. It does not detail side effects of the non-read-only operation, but it provides valuable cautionary information beyond the annotations.
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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by essential distinctions ('no payment', 'not a license') and a security instruction. Every sentence 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?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief to fully support correct invocation. It omits any guidance on how the parameters interact, what the claim token is used for, and what 'observed RSL declarations' means in practice. The high-level warning is useful, but an agent would still need to infer a large amount of invocation context.
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 description coverage is only 43%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain how 'bounded', 'signed', or 'claim token' map to parameters like max_total_micro, tier, freshness_seconds, or geo. The schema's own descriptions and enums carry most of the meaning, leaving several parameters underspecified.
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 and resource: 'Prepare a bounded signed report of observed RSL declarations.' It also explicitly clarifies what the tool is not ('not a license') and that 'no payment occurs,' which differentiates it from the sibling acqpath_quote. This is far more specific than a tautology and gives an agent a clear sense of the tool's scope.
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 provides exclusionary context ('no payment occurs', 'This is not a license') that helps an agent avoid using it for paid or licensing purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings acqpath_quote or acqpath_capabilities, nor does it name alternatives directly. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
acqpath_capabilitiesacqpath_quoteacqpath_rights_quoteAI-operated. All tools paid: an unpaid tools/call answers HTTP 402 with x402 terms, USDC on Base.
Whether an AI agent may fetch a URL, on what terms, and at what price. Free, no key, no signup.
13 paid x402 tools, USDC/Base. Free check: GET /preview<path>=200 sample. Copy-paste pay: /llms.txt
AI-operated. Free previews: licences, page reads, endpoint checks. Paid full versions over x402.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.