OMNIGATE facilitator: settled 14 fleet services end-to-end 2026-11-02 (SELF-PROOF). Receipts public.
Scored across 9 tools
Several clusters overlap: interfere and leviathan_interfere are near-duplicates except for Leviathan inclusion, while sml_discover, sml_status, and x402_contract all expose related x402 contract/payment-rail discovery information. Descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent could reasonably hesitate between tools in these clusters.
There is partial grouping with omnigate_runtime_* and sml_* prefixes, but the overall set mixes noun-only names (interfere, x402_contract), prefixed names, and verb-ish names (spend_gate_check). A consistent convention is not followed throughout, though the names remain readable.
Nine tools is a reasonable size for an x402 gateway with paid trading-signal gates, runtime scripting, and payment vetting. The count is appropriate, though the overlapping discovery/contract tools slightly weaken the sense that each tool uniquely earns its place.
The surface covers discovery, payment contract/status inspection, runtime search/execute/receipt, trading-signal coherence checks, and advisory spend vetting. Minor lifecycle gaps exist, such as managing registered signal sources or refund/credit workflows, but core workflows are represented.
Coherent Gate (PAID, x402/USDC). Scores whether your trading-signal paths agree: confidence-weighted long/short/flat consensus, coherence 0-1, and a pass/block gate (pass needs a non-flat consensus and coherence at or above the threshold, default 0.6). Tiers by path count: scout ≤4 $0.01, standard ≤8 $0.05, beast ≤32 $0.25 (defaults). The $0.25 max tier is charged upfront; on the x402 rail the unused difference is recorded as owed (not yet auto-refunded); on the Arc escrow rail (arc_auth_id) only the used tier is captured. Optional ticker pulls extra paths from registered sources before charging. Max 32 paths. Not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | No | Coherent Gate: AI trading signal paths to check for coherence. Priced tiers: scout ≤4, standard ≤8, beast ≤32 (defaults); >32 hard-rejected. | |
| ticker | No | Optional: pull extra paths for this ticker from registered path sources (see docs/COHERENT_GATE_PATH_SOURCES.md). | |
| sources | No | Optional path-source ids; default = all enabled verified sources. Requires ticker. | |
| arc_auth_id | No | Arc rail: authId from AuthCaptureEscrow.authorize() for at least the max-tier amount to our receiver. Only the used tier is captured; the rest returns via reclaim() after expiry. | |
| payment_header | No | Base64 X-PAYMENT EIP-3009 payload (standard rail). | |
| wallet_address | No | Agent wallet address (informational). | |
| payment_tx_hash | No | Base USDC tx hash (sovereign rail). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description earns that with concrete financial consequences: the $0.25 max tier is charged upfront, unused difference is recorded as owed and not auto-refunded on x402, while Arc escrow captures only the used tier via reclaim(). It also notes that a ticker pulls extra paths *before* charging, a non-obvious ordering side effect.
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?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, then pricing, then rail-specific refund behavior — every sentence carries operational weight. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy (e.g. '$0.25 max tier ... (not yet auto-refunded)'), which slows parsing slightly but does not waste space.
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 no output schema, the description still names the returned components (consensus, coherence 0-1, pass/block) and covers pricing, refund asymmetry, and the 32-path cap — enough to call it safely. What is missing is the response envelope or error behavior when the gate blocks, which matters for a paid call.
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 descriptions are already 100% covered, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond them by explaining that ticker/sources expand the path set before pricing and by contrasting the arc_auth_id and payment_header rails. Path-level field requirements are left to the schema.
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 and resource: scores whether trading-signal paths agree, producing a confidence-weighted consensus, a coherence 0-1 value, and a pass/block gate. The scope (max 32 paths, paid gate) is unmistakable and separates it from smoke/generic 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?
Gives the pass criterion (non-flat consensus plus coherence at or above the threshold, default 0.6) and tier boundaries, so the conditions for a useful call are inferable. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. leviathan_interfere or spend_gate_check) or states when *not* to use this gate, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Coherent Gate + Leviathan (PAID, x402/USDC). Fetches the SML Leviathan signal (squeeze, momentum, or all) for a ticker, adds it as one path with your optional paths and registered sources, then runs the same coherence check as interfere: consensus, coherence 0-1, pass/block gate. Same tiers and billing as interfere ($0.25 max tier charged upfront; x402 difference recorded as owed, Arc rail captures only the used tier). If Leviathan is unavailable it continues on the other paths; with no paths it errors before charging. Max 32 paths. Not financial advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | No | Coherent Gate: extra signal paths (Leviathan adds one; total ≤ 32). | |
| ticker | Yes | Ticker symbol, 1-10 uppercase letters (e.g. AAPL). | |
| sources | No | Optional path-source ids added alongside Leviathan; default = all enabled verified sources. | |
| arc_auth_id | No | Arc rail: authId from AuthCaptureEscrow.authorize() for at least the max-tier amount to our receiver. Only the used tier is captured; the rest returns via reclaim() after expiry. | |
| signal_type | Yes | Which Leviathan signal to fetch and add as a path: squeeze, momentum, or all. | |
| payment_header | No | Base64 X-PAYMENT EIP-3009 payload (standard rail). | |
| wallet_address | No | Agent wallet address (informational). | |
| payment_tx_hash | No | Base USDC tx hash (sovereign rail). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the payment model: PAID x402/USDC, $0.25 max tier charged upfront, x402 difference recorded as owed, Arc rail captures only the used tier, and no charge if it errors for lack of paths. That is exactly the cost/side-effect context an agent needs before invoking a billed mutation. It stops short of stating failure/retry or rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.
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?
Front-loads the identity and the paid/naming, then the mechanics, then billing and edge cases; most sentences carry distinct information. The billing sentence is dense (upfront charge, owed difference, Arc rail capture) and could be split, but nothing is filler.
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?
No output schema, yet the description names the return shape (consensus, coherence 0-1, pass/block gate), the path cap, the paid rails, and the two failure modes. For an 8-parameter billed tool this covers what an agent needs to call it confidently; missing only retry/idempotency guidance for a non-idempotent paid call.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by stating the 32-path cap (schema caps at 31 + Leviathan) and by explaining what signal_type actually selects as a path. It says little extra about sources, payment_header, or arc_auth_id beyond what the schema already documents.
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 the specific composition: fetches the SML Leviathan signal (squeeze/momentum/all) for a ticker, appends it as one path, and runs the coherence check. Explicitly relates it to the sibling 'interfere' ("runs the same coherence check as interfere"), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.
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?
Clear that this is the Leviathan-augmented variant of interfere and that it degrades gracefully when Leviathan is unavailable (continues on other paths) and errors before charging when no paths exist. It doesn't state an explicit when-not-to-use-this-vs-interfere rule, but the implied routing is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
OMNIGATE Runtime (PAID, USDC). Run ONE JavaScript script that calls many SML tools, in one round trip, instead of one model turn per tool call. The script is the body of an async function: const r = await sml.call("<route-id>", { query: {...} }); return r.data;. Available inside: sml.call, sml.tools.search, sml.tools.get, sml.budget, sml.sleep, sml.log, sml.input. Every call is metered at its live registry price against budget_usdc, charged only on upstream 2xx, and tagged with source + response sha256; a failed upstream throws TruthError (nothing charged, nothing substituted). Unused budget is returned as credit. Returns result, per-call provenance, billing and an Ed25519-signed receipt id. Without payment it returns the x402 challenge (amount = budget). Pay with payment_header (Base USDC, x402 v2), credit_token (smlrt_…), or arc_auth_id (Arc escrow, when enabled). Sandbox: no network except sml.call, no fs, 32MB, 20s CPU, 120s wall (sync).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | sync waits for the result (120s wall); async returns run_id to poll /runtime/runs/{id}. | sync |
| input | No | JSON object exposed to the script as sml.input. | |
| script | No | JavaScript async-function body. Use await; return the final result. | |
| capsule_id | No | Run a published capsule instead of a script (e.g. cap_name@1 or cap_name@latest). | |
| arc_auth_id | No | Arc AuthCaptureEscrow authorization id (maxAmount ≥ budget, expiry ≤ 24h). | |
| budget_usdc | No | Hard spending cap for the whole run in USDC (min 0.01, max 25). | 0.05 |
| credit_token | No | Runtime credit token (smlrt_…) returned by an earlier run. | |
| payment_header | No | Base64 x402 v2 payment payload for exactly budget_usdc USDC on Base (from the challenge). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds substantial context beyond them: metering at live registry price against budget_usdc, charging only on upstream 2xx, TruthError on failed upstream with nothing charged, credit returned for unused budget, and a signed receipt. The sandbox constraints (no network except sml.call, no fs, 32MB, 20s CPU, 120s wall) are exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey.
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?
Front-loads the core purpose and the example snippet before payment and sandbox details, and nearly every clause carries information. It is dense to the point of being a single run-on block, which slightly hurts scanability but not correctness.
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?
For a complex paid, authenticated, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape (result, provenance, billing, signed receipt id), the payment-required path (x402 challenge), failure semantics, and resource limits. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: budget_usdc is a hard cap metered per call, payment_header is Base USDC x402 v2 from the challenge, credit_token reuses prior-run credit, arc_auth_id is Arc escrow, and sml.input maps to the input param. It also documents the in-script API surface (sml.call, sml.tools.search, sml.budget, etc.) that no schema field conveys.
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 and resource ('Run ONE JavaScript script that calls many SML tools, in one round trip') and frames it against the naive alternative of one model turn per tool call. An agent can distinguish this from omnigate_runtime_receipt or x402_contract without opening the schema.
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?
Explains the batching rationale clearly ('instead of one model turn per tool call') and lists the three payment paths, which implicitly tells the agent how to invoke it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g. receipt polling or spend_gate_check) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
OMNIGATE Runtime receipt (FREE). Returns a run receipt — script sha256, payer, rail, payment tx, every upstream call with request/response hashes and charges, outcome — signed with Ed25519 and hash-chained to the previous receipt, plus a verification of signature, body hash and chain link. Use it to prove what an agent ran and paid for.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt_id | Yes | Receipt id from a runtime run (rcpt_…). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the low bar is met. The description adds real context beyond that: the tool is free, and the response includes cryptographic verification of signature, body hash and chain link — telling the agent the result is self-verifying. It does not say what a verification failure returns, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the identity and cost (FREE) and outcome, then the content list, then a one-line usage clause. The return-value enumeration is long but justified because no output schema exists; only minor tightening is possible.
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 carries the burden of describing the return payload — and it does so thoroughly (hashes, payer, rail, tx, upstream calls, signature, chain link, verification). With one fully documented parameter and complete annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% for the single receipt_id parameter, including a pattern and the "rcpt_…" format note, so the schema does all semantic work. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond restating "receipt" concepts, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 and resource (returns a run receipt by id) and enumerates its contents — script sha256, payer, rail, payment tx, upstream calls, signature, chain link. An agent can distinguish this read/verify tool from omnigate_runtime_execute and omnigate_runtime_search without opening a schema.
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?
"Use it to prove what an agent ran and paid for" gives a clear, concrete use case that maps to an audit/proof workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use omnigate_runtime_search to find a receipt_id first) or stating failure conditions, so no explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
OMNIGATE Runtime catalog search (FREE). Finds SML paid routes a runtime script can call with sml.call(id, {query|path|body}), with live per-call USDC prices, plus published capsules (ready-made scripts). Use this before omnigate_runtime_execute to pick route ids. Prices are the live upstream registry amounts; nothing here spends.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max routes to return. | |
| query | No | Keywords, e.g. "short squeeze", "sec filings", "web extract". Empty lists everything (capped). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real value beyond them by asserting cost behavior twice ('FREE', 'nothing here spends') and clarifying that quoted prices are live upstream registry amounts rather than estimates — the key thing an agent needs before deciding whether searching is a commitment.
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?
Three compact sentences with the highest-value fact ('FREE') front-loaded and the workflow hint second. Slightly dense with domain jargon ('SML paid routes', 'capsules'), but every clause carries information an agent needs to select and use the tool.
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?
For a two-parameter, zero-required, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns in useful terms (routes with live prices, plus capsules), the cost model, and the downstream step. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.
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 100%, so both `query` (with examples) and `limit` (1–50, default 20) are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds context that results are 'capped' and shows the payload shape a route is called with (query|path|body), which indirectly hints at what to search for, but it adds nothing about how `limit` or query matching behaves.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Runtime catalog search') and enumerates exactly what it returns: SML paid routes callable via sml.call(id, {...}) with live per-call USDC prices, plus published capsules. It also names the sibling it feeds into (omnigate_runtime_execute), so an agent can separate it from the other catalog/discovery tools without opening a schema.
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?
Explicit sequencing is given: 'Use this before omnigate_runtime_execute to pick route ids,' which tells the agent when to reach for it and what it feeds. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of sml_discover, the closest sibling that presumably also surfaces routes, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find the x402 Gateway contract and where to inspect fresh payment requirements. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new fact not present in structured data: the call is FREE. It does not disclose what the response actually contains, which matters for a discovery tool with no output schema.
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 with no filler, and the resource is stated before the secondary purpose. Slightly terse for the ambiguity it leaves, but nothing is wasted.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent gets back, and it only gestures at 'where to inspect fresh payment requirements'. For an entry-point tool that other calls depend on, that leaves a meaningful gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter meaning for the description to compensate for.
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 verb 'Find' plus the resource 'x402 Gateway contract' gives a concrete target, and the second clause indicates it also surfaces where payment requirements live. However, 'where to inspect fresh payment requirements' is vague about the actual output, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling x402_contract, which plausibly does something similar.
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 when-to-use guidance is given and neither sibling (sml_status, x402_contract) is named or differentiated. An agent must infer that this is an entry-point/discovery call rather than a contract-query call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check the public x402 Gateway identity and canonical payment rail. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that this is a free public identity and payment-rail check, but does not cover authentication needs, rate limits, or return format; with annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 with no wasted words. It states the action and resource immediately, and the FREE note is relevant cost context.
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?
Given the low complexity, zero parameters, and rich annotations, the definition is nearly complete. It implies the returned information is gateway identity and canonical payment rail, though it could be slightly clearer about the exact response contents since no output schema exists.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document beyond the empty schema. Per the baseline for zero parameters, this is adequately specified.
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 gives a specific verb, "Check," and a specific resource, the public x402 Gateway identity and canonical payment rail. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings sml_discover or x402_contract.
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 states that the check is FREE, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or when not to use it. An agent must infer the usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Spend Gate (PAID $0.005 USDC on Base via x402). Advisory payment assessment — no wallet signing or spending by the buyer: a real Provider Trust approval and price cap are mandatory; explicit package/history rejections block. Four distinct decision inputs vote pay-side/reject-side — provider_trust (Provider Trust verify_provider) and payload_safety (ScriptDocs vulnerability check, only when manifest_url names an npm/PyPI/crates package) — both vote with real verdicts via the fleet operator lane at $0 upstream toll, price_sanity (quote vs caller policy_cap_usdc or the v1 default cap table; cap-only in v1, no historical median), delivery_history (this host's OmniGate settlement/delivery ledger). Coherence = |Σ w·d| / Σ w with d=+1 pay-side, −1 reject-side, w=confidence; gate_pass requires a positive Provider Trust decision, a real within-cap quote, no explicit safety or delivery-history rejection, coherence ≥ 0.6, and a pay-side consensus. The verdict is advisory, not payment authorization. Paths with no data abstain (no_signal) and contribute nothing. Only on a gate pass does Jev review run (noul act probability + pay/reject/quarantine choice, model + token usage returned). Use for: vetting a payee/invoice immediately before an agent wallet pays it. Don't use when: you need an actual payment executed (this is a check, it moves no funds), a trading signal (use interfere), or a free lookup (there is none — unpaid calls return the payment challenge). Settlement to the canonical SML payTo on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payee | Yes | Payee domain (e.g. "api.example.com") and/or full endpoint URL the wallet is about to pay. | |
| manifest_url | No | Optional package page URL (npmjs.com/package/…, pypi.org/project/…, crates.io/crates/…) for the payload_safety path. | |
| quoted_amount | Yes | Quoted amount in USDC the wallet is about to pay. | |
| tool_category | No | Optional category of the tool/service being bought (e.g. data_lookup, market_data, inference, compute). Selects the v1 default cap when policy_cap_usdc is omitted; when omitted entirely the cap table's "default" cap applies. | |
| payment_header | No | Base64 X-PAYMENT EIP-3009 payload (standard rail) for $0.005 USDC on Base. | |
| wallet_address | No | Agent wallet address (informational). | |
| payment_tx_hash | No | Base USDC tx hash (sovereign rail) paying $0.005 to the canonical SML receiver. | |
| policy_cap_usdc | No | Optional caller policy cap in USDC; overrides the v1 default cap table for price_sanity. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the $0.005 USDC x402 cost, that unpaid calls return a payment challenge (no free tier), that no wallet signing/spending occurs on the buyer side, mandatory Provider Trust approval, the gate-pass criteria and coherence formula, and that Jev review only runs on a pass. Minor gap: it never clarifies how the paid call interacts with the destructiveHint=true annotation, so an agent could read a mild tension between 'moves no funds' and the declared destructive hint.
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?
Front-loads cost and the advisory nature well, but the middle is a wall of internal jargon ('fleet operator lane', 'Jev review', 'noul act probability', 'SML payTo', the coherence formula) that an agent must parse for little decision value. The high-value 'Use for / Don't use when' guidance is buried at the end.
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 no output schema, the description does the required work: it explains the verdict is advisory, lists the gate_pass conditions, and notes that a Jev review result (pay/reject/quarantine, model, token usage) is returned only on a pass. Exact response field names and abstention output shape are not spelled out, which is the remaining gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: manifest_url only activates payload_safety for npm/PyPI/crates packages, tool_category selects the v1 default cap when policy_cap_usdc is omitted, and policy_cap_usdc overrides the cap table for price_sanity. The distinction between payment_header (standard rail) and payment_tx_hash (sovereign rail) is left mostly to the schema.
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 and resource: an advisory payment assessment (Spend Gate) of a payee/invoice before an agent wallet pays it. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings (interfere for trading signals, no free lookup) and names its four decision inputs, so an agent can tell exactly what it does.
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?
Contains an explicit 'Use for' (vetting a payee/invoice immediately before payment) and 'Don't use when' clause covering payment execution, trading signals, and free lookups, naming the alternative (interfere). Nothing about when to select this tool is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inspect the canonical x402 payment contract. Returns network, USDC asset, payTo, headers, and the rule for resolving fresh target requirements. FREE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the concrete fields returned and flagging that the call is 'FREE', which tells the agent no x402 payment is incurred by inspecting the contract itself.
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-loaded with the action and resource, then the return contents. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so by enumerating the key fields, including the 'rule for resolving fresh target requirements' which hints at downstream use. Slightly incomplete in that the actual return shape/nesting and how to consume the rule are not spelled out.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object consistent with the no-arg design.
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 and resource ('Inspect the canonical x402 payment contract') and enumerates the payload it exposes (network, USDC asset, payTo, headers, resolution rule). An agent knows exactly what this tool is for without opening any other record.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear this is a read-only inspection of the payment contract, and 'FREE' signals no payment path is triggered. It never says when to prefer this over the sibling tools (sml_discover, sml_status) or what prerequisite/alternatives exist, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
omnigate_runtime_executeomnigate_runtime_receiptomnigate_runtime_searchspend_gate_checkinterfereleviathan_interfereagentcard_lookupagentcard_mintagentcard_verifyapm_executeapm_negotiatebacktest_runbacktest_validatebeacon_scoutcopytrader_statuscopytrader_subscribecopytrader_whalescrawl_paid_fetchcrypto_token_pricecrypto_trendingequities_heatmap_fullequities_heatmap_previewfederal_clinical_trialsfederal_congress_billsfederal_drug_adverse_eventsfederal_drug_labelfederal_drug_recallfederal_entity_compliancefederal_epa_violationsfederal_fec_financefederal_finra_brokerfederal_grantsfederal_grants_govfederal_insider_tradesfederal_lobbyingfederal_npi_lookupfederal_options_flowfederal_oshafederal_patentsfederal_sam_entityfederal_sam_opportunitiesfederal_sba_awardsfederal_sbir_grantsfederal_sec_filingsfederal_treasury_yieldsfederal_usaspending_awardsforge_llmforge_statusftd_threshold_scanfx_exchange_rateget_agent_magnet_beaconsget_beacon_passportget_beacon_scoreghost_routeghost_statushcv_fmrhousing_landlord_checklisthud_vash_contactslaunchpad_buylaunchpad_createlaunchpad_listlaunchpad_statusleviathan_signallist_magnetsnexus_agent_hireoptions_delta_heatmap_fulloptions_delta_heatmap_previewpha_lookuppha_opportunitiespha_searchproof_credit_scoreproof_invoiceproof_verifyrails_statusrails_transferrobinhood_orderrobinhood_portfoliorobinhood_quotescreen_restricted_partysearch_trade_leadssection8_fmrsection8_geo_lookupsection8_income_limitsshadow_ingestshadow_querysqueezeos_councilsqueezeos_demosqueezeos_ftdsqueezeos_futures_leaderboardsqueezeos_historysqueezeos_iwmsqueezeos_marketplace_browsesqueezeos_marketplace_readsqueezeos_optionssqueezeos_oraclesqueezeos_previewsqueezeos_scansqueezeos_statustradier_ordertradier_positionstradier_quotex402_contractxdeo_earnings_estimatexmit_edgar_decodeagentcard_lookupagentcard_mintagentcard_verifyai_fact_checkairdrop_checkapm_executeapm_negotiatebacktest_run10 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +falseInput schema / properties / feesAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Round-trip commission rate (default 0.001 = 0.1%)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / lookback_daysAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Days of history to backtest (30–1260, default 252)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / momentum_thresholdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Minimum momentum to enter long (default 0.001)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / momentum_windowAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Momentum rolling window in days (default 10)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / slippageAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Slippage per side (default 0.0005)",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / tickerAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Ticker symbol (e.g. NVDA, SPY, GME)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / wallet_addressAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Agent wallet address (optional)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[]New value: +[
+ "ticker",
+ "lookback_days",
+ "fees",
+ "slippage",
+ "momentum_window",
+ "momentum_threshold",
+ "wallet_address"
+]backtest_strategiesbacktest_sweepbacktest_validatebase_rpcbase64_encodebeacon_scoutbinance_fundingbinance_tickerbtc_mempool_feesbtc_pricecalculatorclinical_trials_searchcoingecko_categoriescompliance_anomaly_reportcompliance_bank_auditcompliance_regulator_querycongressional_bills_searchcopytrader_statuscopytrader_subscribecopytrader_whalescrawl_paid_fetchcrypto_globalcrypto_newscrypto_penny_squeeze_scannercrypto_pricecrypto_squeeze_scannercrypto_token_pricecrypto_trendingcsv_to_jsondefi_analyticsdefi_chains_tvldefi_protocol_tvldefi_tvl_rankingdefi_yielddefi_yield_ratesdefi_yields_poolsdexscreener_boostsdexscreener_searchdomain_enrichdruckenmiller_macro_regime_analysisemail_validateentity_compliance_checkepa_environmental_violationsequities_heatmap_fullequities_heatmap_previeweth_priceeth_rpcexcluded_parties_checkfda_adverse_events_reportfda_drug_recall_alertfda_food_recallsfda_warning_lettersfear_greed_indexfec_campaign_financefederal_award_historyfederal_clinical_trialsfederal_congress_billsfederal_contract_opportunitiesfederal_drug_adverse_eventsfederal_drug_labelfederal_drug_recallfederal_entity_compliancefederal_epa_violationsfederal_fec_financefederal_finra_brokerfederal_grantsfederal_grants_govfederal_insider_tradesfederal_lobbyingfederal_npi_lookupfederal_options_flowfederal_oshafederal_patentsfederal_sam_entityfederal_sam_opportunitiesfederal_sba_awardsfederal_sbir_grantsfederal_sec_filingsfederal_spending_by_agencyfederal_treasury_yieldsfederal_usaspending_awardsforge_llmforge_statusfred_economic_indicatorsftd_threshold_scanfunding_ratesfx_exchange_ratefx_rategas_trackergeckoterminal_trendingget_agent_magnet_beacons5 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional max paid beacons."New value: +"Optional max paid+free beacons in the set."Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +500Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]get_beacon_passportget_beacon_scoreghost_routeghost_statushash_computehcv_fmrhex_converthmac_computehoneypot_checkhousing_landlord_checklisthttp_checkhud_vash_contactshyperliquid_all_midshyperliquid_metaip_infojson_to_csvjson_to_yamljson_validatejwt_decodekeyword_extractl2_activitylaunchpad_buylaunchpad_createlaunchpad_listlaunchpad_statusleviathan_signalliquidation_risk_checklist_magnets9 fields changedInput schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / min_imp_scoreAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Minimum IMP imp_score filter 0-1 (preferred).",
+ "maximum": 1,
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / min_strength / descriptionPrevious value: -"Minimum magnet_strength 0-1 filter."New value: +"Minimum magnet_strength filter 0-1 (legacy)."Input schema / properties / min_strength / maximumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / min_strength / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / sortAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Rank key (default imp_score).",
+ "enum": [
+ "imp_score",
+ "magnet_strength"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[]llm_chatlobbying_disclosuresmarket_regime_indicatornew_token_detectionnews_headlinesnexus_agent_hirenumber_formatopenfda_drug_labeloptions_delta_heatmap_fulloptions_delta_heatmap_previewosha_inspection_recordspenny_squeeze_scannerpercentageperp_funding_aggregatorpha_lookuppha_opportunitiespha_searchproof_credit_scoreproof_invoiceproof_verifyrails_statusrails_transferregex_testrobinhood_orderrobinhood_portfoliorobinhood_quoterobots_checkrugpull_detectorrwa_aggregatesrwa_assetsrwa_intelligencerwa_riskrwa_valuationsam_entity_verificationsam_opportunitiesscreen_restricted_partysdvosb_setaside_feedsearch_trade_leadssec_10_k_annual_filingsec_10_q_quarterly_filingsec_13d_13g_activist_filingssec_13f_institutional_holdingssec_8_k_real_time_filingssec_company_tickerssec_insider_trade_intelsection8_fmrsection8_geo_lookupsection8_income_limitssemver_compareshadow_ingestshadow_querysitemap_readersmart_money_alertssml_discoversml_statussocial_searchsol_pricesqueeze_scannersqueezeos_councilsqueezeos_demosqueezeos_ftdsqueezeos_futures_leaderboardsqueezeos_historysqueezeos_iwmsqueezeos_marketplace_browsesqueezeos_marketplace_readsqueezeos_optionssqueezeos_oraclesqueezeos_previewsqueezeos_scansqueezeos_statusstablecoin_flow_trackerstablecoin_mcapstablecoin_watchstatisticstext_case_converttext_difftext_slugifytext_statstls_certtoken_detailstoken_security_audittoken_top_marketstradier_ordertradier_positionstradier_quotetreasury_yieldstrending_altcoinstrending_tokenstx_statusunit_converturl_parseus_gov_searchus_weather_alertsusdc_balanceuseragent_parseusgs_earthquakeswallet_analysiswallet_analyzerweb_fetchweb_markdownweb_searchwhois_rdapx402_market_pulsexdeo_earnings_estimatexmit_edgar_decodexml_to_jsonyaml_to_jsonbacktest_runbacktest_strategiesbacktest_sweepai_fact_checkairdrop_checkbase_rpcbase64_encodebinance_fundingbinance_tickerbtc_mempool_feesbtc_pricecalculatorclinical_trials_searchcoingecko_categoriescompliance_anomaly_reportcompliance_bank_auditcompliance_regulator_querycongressional_bills_searchcrypto_globalcrypto_newscrypto_penny_squeeze_scannercrypto_pricecrypto_squeeze_scannercsv_to_jsondefi_analyticsdefi_chains_tvldefi_protocol_tvldefi_tvl_rankingdefi_yielddefi_yield_ratesdefi_yields_poolsdexscreener_boostsdexscreener_searchdomain_enrichdruckenmiller_macro_regime_analysisemail_validateentity_compliance_checkepa_environmental_violationseth_priceeth_rpcexcluded_parties_checkfda_adverse_events_reportfda_drug_recall_alertfda_food_recallsfda_warning_lettersfear_greed_indexfec_campaign_financefederal_award_historyfederal_contract_opportunitiesfederal_spending_by_agencyfred_economic_indicatorsfunding_ratesfx_rategas_trackergeckoterminal_trendingget_agent_magnet_beaconshash_computehex_converthmac_computehoneypot_checkhttp_checkhyperliquid_all_midshyperliquid_metaip_infojson_to_csvjson_to_yamljson_validatejwt_decodekeyword_extractl2_activityliquidation_risk_checklist_magnetsllm_chatlobbying_disclosuresmarket_regime_indicatornew_token_detectionnews_headlinesnumber_formatopenfda_drug_labelosha_inspection_recordspenny_squeeze_scannerpercentageperp_funding_aggregatorregex_testrobots_checkrugpull_detectorrwa_aggregatesrwa_assetsrwa_intelligencerwa_riskrwa_valuationsam_entity_verificationsam_opportunitiessdvosb_setaside_feedsec_10_k_annual_filingsec_10_q_quarterly_filingsec_13d_13g_activist_filingssec_13f_institutional_holdingssec_8_k_real_time_filingssec_company_tickerssec_insider_trade_intelsemver_comparesitemap_readersmart_money_alertssocial_searchsol_pricesqueeze_scannerstablecoin_flow_trackerstablecoin_mcapstablecoin_watchstatisticstext_case_converttext_difftext_slugifytext_statstls_certtoken_detailstoken_security_audittoken_top_marketstreasury_yieldstrending_altcoinstrending_tokenstx_statusunit_converturl_parseus_gov_searchus_weather_alertsusdc_balanceuseragent_parseusgs_earthquakeswallet_analysiswallet_analyzerweb_fetchweb_markdownweb_searchwhois_rdapx402_market_pulsexml_to_jsonyaml_to_jsonPayment decisions, durable evidence, x402 resource discovery and live gateway status for AI agents.
Cryptographically anchored evidence for agents: verified run receipts, proof-gated settlement.
Coherence-gated signal engine. Paid verdict settled end-to-end 2026-11-01 (SELF-PROOF, XRPL).
Invoice/verify/score via RLUSD on XRPL. Own settlements proven end-to-end (SELF-PROOF).
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
