inspect_capabilityInspect one live capability by sml_id. Returns its real endpoint/payment metadata and, when safe, a real liveness probe rather than an invented reliability score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| probe | No | ||
| sml_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by explaining that it returns real metadata and may perform a real liveness probe when safe, and explicitly disclaims invented reliability scores. 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key behavioral nuance. No filler or repetition.
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?
The description gives a solid overview of the tool's purpose and return content (endpoint, payment metadata, liveness probe), which is adequate for a simple read operation given the rich annotations. However, the 'when safe' condition and the meaning of the 'probe' parameter are left undefined, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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 explain parameters. It contextualizes sml_id as the capability identifier, but it never mentions the 'probe' boolean parameter, its default, or how it affects behavior. This is a significant 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?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Inspect'), the resource ('one live capability'), and the required key ('sml_id'). It also distinguishes itself from tools that produce reliability scores by emphasizing real liveness probes, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to inspect a specific capability by sml_id and get real endpoint/payment metadata. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer instead.
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.