Explain how to obtain authoritative pricing for a GhostKey/SML paid capability. Pricing and settlement destination come from the fresh live HTTP 402 challenge, never a copied wallet or stale fixed price.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds a key behavioral rule: pricing and settlement destination must come from the fresh live HTTP 402 challenge, never copied/stale data. But it does not describe the request/response behavior, side effects, or error cases.
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?
Two short sentences front-load the purpose and then add a non-obvious sourcing constraint. No filler 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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns and how the caller obtains the live 402 challenge. It mentions pricing and settlement destination but leaves the output format, challenge acquisition, and error behavior undefined.
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?
The schema has one 'capability' string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that the capability is a GhostKey/SML paid capability, but it does not specify accepted values, format, or how the capability should be identified, so compensation is partial.
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 names a specific resource and goal: obtaining authoritative pricing for a GhostKey/SML paid capability. It is distinct from sibling catalog/policy/status tools, but the verb 'Explain how to obtain' is somewhat indirect and does not explicitly say the tool returns a quote.
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?
It implies use when authoritative pricing/settlement destination is needed and explicitly warns against copied wallets or stale fixed prices. However, it never names siblings or states when to prefer ghostkey_catalog/policy/status, leaving selection to inference.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: catalog lists capabilities, policy returns policy details, quote explains pricing acquisition, and status reports server health. No two tools overlap in function.
All tool names follow the exact same pattern: 'ghostkey_' prefix followed by a single noun. Consistent and predictable naming scheme.
Four tools is well-scoped for a server focused on providing GhostKey metadata and status. Each tool addresses a clear need without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers catalog, policy, quote, and status, which are the core informational functions. It intentionally does not expose callable paid capabilities, so there are no obvious dead ends for its stated purpose.