x402_launch_kitGenerate a validated listing payload, x402 resource draft, MCP descriptor, GitHub readiness workflow, README snippet, and registry copy for one paid endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| asset | No | ||
| method | No | POST | |
| network | No | base | |
| endpoint | Yes | ||
| owner_url | No | ||
| price_usdc | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| owner_contact | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) already indicate side effects are possible, but the description adds no context about what those side effects are—e.g., whether it triggers external workflows, writes to GitHub, or requires authentication. The 'GitHub readiness workflow' hints at potential external actions but is vague.
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 with a clear subject and verb. It's front-loaded with 'Generate' and then enumerates outputs efficiently. Though the list is long, it contains no excessive words or redundancy.
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?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this tool demands rich context. The description only names outputs and gives no input guidance, no constraints, and no explanation of workflows like 'GitHub readiness.' An agent cannot construct a correct request from this description alone.
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 0%, and the description mentions no parameters. With 10 parameters (name, endpoint, price_usdc, etc.), the agent must guess meanings, formats, and required vs. optional fields. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 uses a clear verb 'Generate' and lists specific concrete outputs (listing payload, x402 resource draft, MCP descriptor, GitHub readiness workflow, README snippet, registry copy) for 'one paid endpoint.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_x402_tool or ontario_purchase_router, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The scope is well-defined.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., find_x402_tool, ontario_list-service). It doesn't state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or which tool covers other steps. The description only says what it does, not when it should be chosen.
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.
Some tools have overlapping purposes, such as bazaar_buyer_intent_gap and x402_readiness_verify both performing audits, and ontario_list-service and x402_launch_kit both generating listing materials. However, the detailed descriptions clarify the distinct contexts, so an agent can generally tell them apart.
Tool names mix snake_case (agent_can_pay), hyphenated (ontario_list-service), and inconsistent prefixes (x402_ vs ontario_). The verbs also vary widely (can_pay, find, list-service, refresh-listing, readiness_verify), making the naming pattern chaotic.
With 8 tools, the count is within a reasonable range and each tool serves a distinct part of the x402 workflow. A few tools could potentially be merged (e.g., launch_kit as part of list-service), but the count is not excessive.
The core lifecycle of discovery, readiness verification, payment policy, listing, and refresh is covered. However, there is no tool for editing or deleting an existing listing, and the refresh tool explicitly cannot modify metadata, creating a notable gap in management capabilities.