kyt_quotePOST /api/kyt_quote. Price for a paid crypto-address screen (Didit). Debit is on kyt_check (~0.99 USDT from 2401), not on quote. Off unless didit.enabled and didit.agent_api. Does not gate TRON deposit. Not /api/client/kyt_* and not partner. Space ~1s.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: pricing is not debited, debit occurs on kyt_check at ~0.99 USDT from 2401, service is feature-flagged, latency is ~1s, and TRON deposits are unaffected. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding 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?
Extremely compact and information-dense, with the endpoint and core purpose first, then cost, availability, exclusions, and latency. Every clause earns its place and no redundant wording appears.
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 quote endpoint, the description is complete: it states purpose, pricing behavior, feature flags, exclusions, endpoint family, and performance. There is no output schema, but the description's 'price' purpose sufficiently frames the expected response without needing to over-specify.
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 already covers everything. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 endpoint and purpose: price for a paid crypto-address screen via Didit. Explicitly distinguishes itself from kyt_check (debit happens there, not on quote) and from /api/client/kyt_* and partner endpoints.
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?
Provides clear context on when the tool is available (requires didit.enabled and didit.agent_api) and when it is not relevant (does not gate TRON deposit, not partner endpoint). Could more explicitly state 'use kyt_check for the actual screen/debit, use this for pricing first,' but the debit distinction strongly implies the workflow.
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.
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs: card creation, card detail, top-up, eSIM/gift purchase, KYT initiation, KYT polling, and history are all separated. The KYT family is the main risk area, but the descriptions clearly distinguish check, get, checks, and quote.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, e.g., list_cards, purchase_gift, topup_card, get_balance. The KYT group is inconsistent—kyt_check, kyt_check_get, kyt_checks, kyt_quote—and set_webhook/rotate_hmac break the pattern slightly, but the overall set remains predictable.
19 tools is above the typical 3-15 sweet spot, but the count is justified by the range of spend rails and supporting operations: cards, eSIM, gift cards, KYT screening, notifications, and webhook management. No tool feels truly redundant, though the KYT cluster adds some bulk.
Core purchase and card workflows are covered: create, topup, details, list, and buy operations exist for cards/eSIM/gifts, plus deposit and KYT screening. However, there is no transaction/spend history, no card freeze or block action, and no explicit purchase status/refund flow, which are notable gaps for a spend-focused server.