Top up your agent wallet via Stripe checkout. Returns a URL the buyer can visit (or your agent can hand to its operator). Once deposited, your wallet can fund any escrow on any chain — bridging fiat into agent-native crypto without friction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amountCents | Yes | Amount in cents ($1.00 = 100) |
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 key behavior: returns a URL the buyer or operator visits, and that the deposit is not immediate ('Once deposited'). This is valuable context, though it omits details about authentication requirements, failure modes, or settlement time.
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 primary action, and avoids redundancy. The second sentence provides useful context about the deposit's purpose without unnecessary detail.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns (URL), and how it fits into the wider workflow (funding escrows). It could be slightly more explicit about the asynchronous nature of the payment, but overall it is complete for this complexity level.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (amountCents with min/max and unit explanation). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond confirming the top-up action, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's function: 'Top up your agent wallet via Stripe checkout.' It uses a specific verb ('Top up'), names the resource ('agent wallet'), and specifies the method (Stripe checkout), distinguishing it from siblings like create_wallet or fund_escrow.
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 the tool should be used when needing to add fiat funds to the agent wallet, and explains the downstream benefit ('Once deposited, your wallet can fund any escrow'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for this purpose.
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 overlapping purposes, especially in reputation (agent_rank_lookup, lookup_trust_score, federated_reputation, resolve_agent, get_identity) and discovery (marketplace_search, semantic_search, search_agents, browse_intents). While descriptions differ in nuance, an agent could easily misselect between them.
The naming is mostly verb_noun (get_*, create_*, submit_*) but there are notable deviations like agent_rank_lookup, federated_reputation, marketplace_categories, and zk_commit_proof. Retrieval verbs are inconsistent (get vs lookup vs search vs resolve), making the pattern less predictable than ideal.
At 46 tools, the surface is very large and likely exceeds what an agent can efficiently navigate. The domain is broad, but this level of granularity creates cognitive overload and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.
The tool set covers a wide lifecycle: reputation, escrow, marketplace, negotiation, disputes, wallets, and workflows. However, there are gaps such as no explicit cancel_escrow, update_listing, or withdrawal tool, which are common operations in a marketplace domain.