Volume pricing for style_report: one 19.90 payment returns 10 single-use credit codes (1.99/unit vs 2.99 single, en or ja, no expiry). Treat codes like cash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x_payment | No | Optional: base64 X-PAYMENT header value (x402 exact scheme, USDC on Base mainnet). Omit it to receive the payment requirements (accepts[] + docs) for this call without being charged. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost, what is returned (10 codes), the single-use nature, no expiry, and warns to treat codes like cash. However, it does not explicitly state that providing the payment header will trigger a charge or describe the cancellation/refund policy.
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, but it packs essential pricing, quantity, language options, and a caution. All content is relevant, though it could be better structured with line breaks.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, cost, return value, and constraints. It does not specify the format of the codes or error cases, but this may be acceptable given the schema's explanation of the payment requirement.
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 only parameter x_payment is fully described in the schema, and the description does not add parameter-specific details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.
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 this tool provides volume pricing for style_report, specifying a 19.90 payment returns 10 single-use credit codes. It distinguishes itself from the sibling style_report tool by framing itself as a bulk purchase option.
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 usage for bulk orders by comparing unit price (1.99/unit vs 2.99 single), but does not explicitly state when to choose this over style_report or other tools. No alternative tools are named, so guidance is implicit.
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.