premium_preflightTriple-user-agent intelligence with five-hop redirect evidence, retries, access controls, commerce risk, can_proceed, and proof. Price: $0.75 USDC. Example: GET /v1/premium-preflight?url=https://example.com
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds useful behavioral context: retries, redirect evidence up to five hops, access controls, commerce risk, can_proceed, and proof. This goes beyond the minimal annotations and gives the agent a better sense of what the tool does internally, though it could be more explicit about retry conditions and output format.
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 sentence, compact and to the point. It packs many features into a short space without excessive fluff. However, the list-like structure makes it less readable and prioritizes marketing terms over functional clarity, so it loses a point for structure.
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?
Without an output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and how to interpret results, but it only mentions 'can_proceed' and 'proof' without elaboration. It also omits a clear statement of the tool's overall purpose and any context about when to rely on its output. For a complex tool like this, the description is incomplete.
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 0%, but the single required parameter 'url' is illustrated in the example. The description does not explain the parameter's meaning or constraints beyond the example, but the URI format and the tool's purpose make it inferable. This is borderline; an explicit statement like 'the URL to preflight' would improve it.
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 lists features ('Triple-user-agent intelligence', 'five-hop redirect evidence', 'commerce risk') but never states a clear action or outcome. It does not explicitly say 'checks a URL' or 'performs a risk assessment'—it relies on the tool name and example to imply purpose, which is insufficient for selecting among siblings like preflight or batch_preflight.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The name 'premium' implies it is a more advanced version of preflight, but the description never states that or compares it to batch_preflight or other siblings.
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.
Several tools overlap significantly: preflight, premium_preflight, and batch_preflight all perform URL preflight with varying price/features, and access_check appears to be a subset of preflight. This creates ambiguity in selecting the right tool for a task.
Most names use snake_case, but the pattern varies: some end in _check, _preflight, _discovery, or _intel, and preflight is a single word without a verb. The naming is readable but not uniformly consistent.
With 7 tools, the count is well within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriate for a URL preflight service that covers different access levels, batch processing, and specialized checks.
The tool set covers core preflight, access, commerce, API discovery, change detection, and batch operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated raw fetch or history endpoint), but they are not critical and can be worked around.