Get the precise, step-by-step x402 payment sequence to buy a product: live network/USDC-contract/amount/pay-to values from the real 402 challenge, assembled into ordered steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Catalog product id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the output (payment steps with live values) but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or whether it is read-only. For a tool that likely executes no mutations, this is a gap.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. Every part adds value, no 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 fully explain the return. It mentions 'ordered steps' with specific values, but lacks detail on format (e.g., JSON, text). Adequate but not exhaustive.
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%, with the parameter 'id' described as 'Catalog product id.' The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states the tool retrieves a step-by-step x402 payment sequence for buying a product, including specific values. It distinguishes well from siblings like get_product (product details) and search_products (search).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies using it when needing payment steps, but does not contrast with siblings or mention prerequisites.
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 clearly distinct purpose: get_product for details, how_to_buy for payment steps, list_categories for categories, search_products for searching. No overlaps.
Three tools follow verb_noun pattern (get_product, list_categories, search_products), but how_to_buy is a phrase, creating a minor inconsistency.
With 4 tools covering search, detail, categories, and buying instructions, the count is well-scoped for a catalog server.
Core operations are covered: search, get, list categories, and buy instructions. Missing a tool to list all products, but search likely handles that with empty query.