Ontario Protocol

Bazaar Buyer Intent Gap

bazaar_buyer_intent_gap

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free read-only provider audit that runs Coinbase's indexing preflight and measures one public x402 endpoint across five live CDP Bazaar buyer-search variations. Returns retrieval coverage, observed sample ranks, alternatives, public 30-day call and unique-payer observations, Base USDC price bands, HTTP 402 and metadata readiness, and the activation boundary. Public quality counts may include owner-funded calls and are not revenue. It never signs or settles.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`target_url`	Yes	Public x402 paid endpoint whose buyer visibility should be measured.
`buyer_query`	Yes	Public task phrase a funded agent could use in CDP Bazaar search; never include credentials or private customer text.
`buyer_queries`	No	Optional explicit portfolio of up to five public buyer phrases. When omitted, Ontario generates four deterministic variants from buyer_query.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`grade`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`checks`	Yes
`schema`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`buyer_fit`	No
`max_score`	No
`report_id`	Yes
`checked_at`	Yes
`target_url`	Yes
`buyer_intent`	No
`next_actions`	No
`cdp_validation`	No
`trust_boundary`	Yes
`catalog_visibility`	Yes
`settlement_activation`	Yes	Observed indexing and activation state, not a promise of placement or demand.
`buyer_intent_portfolio`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "buyer_fit": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "buyer_intent": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "buyer_intent_portfolio": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "catalog_visibility": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "cdp_validation": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "checked_at": {
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "checks": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "enum": [
+        "metadata_ready",
+        "close_to_metadata_ready",
+        "needs_work"
+      ]
+    },
+    "max_score": {
+      "const": 100
+    },
+    "next_actions": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "report_id": {
+      "pattern": "^bazaar_[a-f0-9]{18}$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "schema": {
+      "const": "ontario.coinbase_bazaar_readiness.v1"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "settlement_activation": {
+      "description": "Observed indexing and activation state, not a promise of placement or demand.",
+      "properties": {
+        "activation_required": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "catalog_placement_verified": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "free_check_attempted_settlement": {
+          "const": false
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "free_check_attempted_settlement",
+        "catalog_placement_verified",
+        "activation_required"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "const": "complete"
+    },
+    "target_url": {
+      "format": "uri",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "trust_boundary": {
+      "required": [
+        "checks",
+        "does_not",
+        "methodology",
+        "limits"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schema",
+    "status",
+    "report_id",
+    "checked_at",
+    "target_url",
+    "score",
+    "grade",
+    "checks",
+    "catalog_visibility",
+    "buyer_intent_portfolio",
+    "settlement_activation",
+    "trust_boundary"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by stating that the audit 'never signs or settles' and that quality counts may include owner-funded calls and are not revenue. It also clarifies 'Free read-only provider audit,' matching the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint while adding meaningful caveats that annotations alone could not convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core 'read-only provider audit' purpose. While the first sentence is long and lists many output types in a run-on structure, every clause contributes useful information and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex tool with an output schema, annotations, and three parameters, the description covers purpose, safety guarantees, data-quality caveats, and the main operational boundary. It does not explain how this tool relates to siblings or when a caller should pick it instead, which leaves minor contextual ambiguity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains target_url and buyer_query well. The tool description does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the 'five variations' behavior is already documented in the buyer_queries schema description.

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?

Description clearly names a specific verb-and-resource pair: it runs a read-only provider audit against one public x402 endpoint across CDP Bazaar buyer-search variations. It also enumerates the concrete outputs (retrieval coverage, sample ranks, price bands, activation boundary), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_readiness_verify or find_x402_tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context: this is for auditing buyer visibility of an x402 endpoint and explicitly positions itself as free and read-only. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over its siblings, nor does it name any alternatives or exclusion criteria, so the agent is left to infer routing.

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

All Ontario Protocol tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.