An agent's receipt history and live-computed reputation (trust score, sales, distinct buyers). Use to evaluate a provider before buying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| side | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| agentId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'live-computed reputation,' indicating that data is computed on demand, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects. Without annotations, more detail on behavioral traits would be helpful, but the purpose is clear.
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: the first defines the tool's output, and the second gives a clear use directive. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous information.
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?
While the core purpose is well communicated, the tool has three parameters with no descriptions, and no output schema is provided. This lack of parameter semantics makes it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional assumptions.
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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (side, limit, agentId). For example, 'side' is an enum but its meaning is not clarified, and 'limit' is ambiguous. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.
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?
Description clearly states the tool provides an agent's receipt history and live-computed reputation (trust score, sales, distinct buyers). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'evaluate a provider before buying,' contrasting with tools like payanagent_buy or payanagent_discover.
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 explicitly recommends using the tool to evaluate a provider before making a purchase. While it does not list when not to use it or mention alternatives, the use case is clearly stated and contextually appropriate.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: agent management, offer lifecycle, request lifecycle, buying, discovery, and receipts. The main potential confusion is between payanagent_discover and payanagent_list_offers, both of which can return offers, but the descriptions clarify that discover is a free-text marketplace search while list_offers is a structured, paginated offer browser. Overall, the boundaries are well-defined.
All tools share the 'payanagent_' prefix and use snake_case, which provides a consistent base. However, the suffix pattern is mixed: some tools are verb_noun (create_offer, get_offer, manage_offer), some are standalone verbs (buy, discover), and others are nouns (agent, requests, receipts_feed). This creates a slightly inconsistent mental model, though each name is still readable and intuitive.
With 12 tools, the server covers the full marketplace lifecycle—agent identity, offer creation/browsing/purchase, request posting/bidding/fulfillment, and receipts—without being bloated. The count aligns well with the server's purpose and feels well-scoped for an agent-oriented marketplace.
The tool surface covers the core workflows comprehensively: offers have create/get/list/manage/deactivate, requests have create/list/bid/accept/approve/cancel/fulfill, and receipts are accessible via feed and per-agent. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to delete an agent or offer, but deactivate serves that need, and there is no way to re-retrieve an API key after registration, which seems intentional for security.
