compare_capabilitiesCompare 2-5 live capabilities using the same real metadata returned by inspect_capability; no fabricated composite score is produced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| probe | No | ||
| sml_ids | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it operates on live metadata, produces no fabricated composite score, and is bounded to 2-5 capabilities. There is no contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds a valuable limitation. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning without 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 clarify return expectations; pointing to 'the same real metadata returned by inspect_capability' helps, but the 'probe' parameter remains unexplained. Overall, it is mostly sufficient for a read-only comparison tool but has notable gaps.
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%, so the description must carry parameter explanation, but it only clarifies the count range (2-5). It does not explain the 'probe' boolean or give explicit meaning for 'sml_ids' beyond what the name implies, leaving a real semantic gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('2-5 live capabilities'), and distinguishes this tool from inspect_capability by noting it uses the same real metadata rather than a fabricated composite score. The purpose is immediately clear and well differentiated from siblings.
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?
Clearly implies when to use: when comparing multiple capabilities' real metadata rather than inspecting a single capability. It references inspect_capability and explicitly excludes fabricated composite scoring, but it does not explicitly list alternative tools or state when not to use it.
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 clear ownership: capability inventory tools (manifest, discover, inspect, compare, recommend) and x402 payment tools (contract, readiness, evidence) are cleanly separated, with call_capability and agent_web_access distinguished by API-path vs arbitrary-URL scope. Some overlap remains between discover_capabilities, capability_manifest, and recommend_capability, since all three surface capability inventory in slightly different modes.
The capability tools mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (call_capability, compare_capabilities, discover_capabilities, inspect_capability, recommend_capability), but capability_manifest, system_status, agent_web_access, and the x402_* group are noun phrases rather than actions. This is readable and grouped, but not a single predictable convention.
11 tools is well within the ideal range, and each tool maps to a distinct concern: discovery, inspection, recommendation, invocation, status, and x402 payment support. The count feels appropriately scoped for a capability-and-payment-focused server, neither bloated nor too thin.
The tool set covers the full intended workflow: discover, inspect, compare, and recommend capabilities; invoke them with write confirmation and payment-signature handling; and check payment readiness, contracts, and settlement evidence. Management operations are outside the stated purpose because the manifest is explicitly generated from a Flask route table, so there are no obvious dead ends.