Free 12-week measured score history for any x402 operator from the Market402 index (weekly series, trend, volatility, badge). Check a seller's record before your agent pays an unfamiliar endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operator | Yes | operator domain, e.g. mart402.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing that the tool is free, covers 12 weeks, and includes trend/volatility/badge data. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or auth requirements, but 'history' strongly implies a non-destructive query, and the cost disclosure is valuable beyond the schema.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core deliverable, and every word adds value. It avoids fluff and repeats no schema information.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (weekly series, trend, volatility, badge) and gives a concrete use case. For a single-parameter read-only tool, this is fully adequate.
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% with a description for the 'operator' parameter, but the tool description adds meaning by specifying 'x402 operator from the Market402 index', which clarifies the expected format and domain context, going beyond the generic 'operator domain' example.
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 clearly states the tool returns a 12-week measured score history for an x402 operator, naming specific data elements (weekly series, trend, volatility, badge). It also frames the use case ('Check a seller's record before your agent pays an unfamiliar endpoint'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_x402_services or get_catalog.
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 explicit context for when to use the tool: check a seller's record before paying an unfamiliar endpoint. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before you pay' guidance creates a clear decision rule, making it easy to select among 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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: document_pipeline and parse_document both parse PDFs, portrait_analysis and style_profile both perform color analysis, enrich_company and jp_company_profile both resolve company profiles, and jp_payroll_suite bundles capabilities that already exist as separate tools. Descriptions are detailed, but an agent must carefully compare several near-synonyms before selecting.
All names are snake_case, but the conventions are mixed: get_* for metadata, jp_* for Japan-specific calculations, pdf_* for PDF operations, plus standalone nouns like meal_vision and style_profile. The prefixes help readability, but there is no uniform verb_noun pattern and ordering is inconsistent (quote_parse vs parse_document).
35 tools is far above the well-scoped 3-15 range and indicates an aggregator/marketplace rather than a focused server. Even with clear individual descriptions, the sheer breadth across OCR, PDF, Japan tax, style, and marketplace functions makes the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
Within its broad marketplace scope, the server is fairly complete: paid products have free samples (get_sample), quotes (quote_parse), receipt retrieval (get_receipt), and discovery via get_catalog and search_x402_services. PDF and Japan tax coverage are extensive, though the wide domain spread means no single area feels fully exhaustive.