agent-ready-kit

Start Checkout

start_checkout

Use this when an end user wants to buy the package now. Issues a REAL payable path: the same one-off hosted Stripe invoice request_invoice produces, billed at the flat $450 package price. The invoice is payable immediately and delivery is automatic — the bundle_key activates the moment payment clears (retrievable at thank_you_url). To add custom tools ($150 each), use request_invoice with an explicit amount_usd instead. consult_url is an OPTIONAL extra for buyers who want a human walkthrough — never required. For Free tier downloads, call generate_files instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No	The package (defaults to the flat $450 kit).
`email`	Yes	End user's email (the invoice is sent here)
`domain`	Yes	Domain they want made agent-ready

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No
`status`	Yes
`message`	No
`amount_usd`	No	Billed one-time amount ($450 flat package).
`invoice_id`	No
`consult_url`	No	OPTIONAL extra: a human walkthrough is available here — never required to close.
`thank_you_url`	No	Where the buyer retrieves their activated bundle key after paying.
`bundle_key_note`	No	How delivery works: the bundle_key activates automatically on payment.
`hosted_invoice_url`	No	Pay this now — the primary next step.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the critical real-world side effect: it issues an actual payable invoice, delivery is automatic, and the bundle_key activates upon payment. It also clarifies that consult_url is optional. This goes well beyond the annotations (which only indicate it's not read-only) and provides essential behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: usage trigger, core behavior, alternative, clarification, and free-tier fallback. No fluff or redundancy; it is well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's financial impact and delivery mechanism, the description provides comprehensive context: when to use, alternatives, payment flow, delivery timing, and optional extras. The output schema presumably documents return values, so the description is complete for agent decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the flat $450 price and the optional nature of consult_url (though not in the schema, it's useful context). It doesn't fully clarify whether consult_url is an input or output, but it does add meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource ('buy the package now') and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_invoice and generate_files. It is immediately obvious what this tool does and how it differs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given ('Use this when an end user wants to buy the package now'), with clear exclusions and alternatives: custom tools via request_invoice, Free tier via generate_files. This fully covers usage context and differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All agent-ready-kit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with descriptions that prevent confusion. Tools like scan_site and run_site_audit are differentiated by their focus on AI-readiness vs. site quality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with clear action words like 'scan', 'create', 'get', 'verify'. Even longer names like 'summarize_scan_for_humans' maintain consistency.

Tool Count4/5

22 tools is slightly above the ideal range but justified by the comprehensive scope of the server, covering scanning, analysis, quoting, file delivery, and verification. Some tools like generate_files and get_customer_files could overlap but serve different contexts.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the entire workflow from site scanning to deployment verification, with no obvious dead ends. All necessary operations for making a site agent-ready are present, including edge cases like x402 validation and credential verification.

Start Checkout

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources