Assemble one appeal packet per receipt ($4.99 x402 via REST; via MCP returns packet requirements)
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"agent_id": "<agent_id>"
},
"name": "appeal_packet"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the $4.99 x402 payment path via REST and that MCP returns packet requirements rather than a packet, but it omits permissions, side effects, and what happens if payment is required through MCP.
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 text. The parenthetical efficiently adds pricing and MCP behavior, though the phrase 'per receipt' is slightly cryptic given the schema only exposes agent_id.
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 paid operational tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It mentions MCP returns packet requirements but does not explain what those requirements are, what the output looks like, or how agent_id affects the result.
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 only parameter, agent_id, has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the description. The description mentions 'per receipt', but that does not map to the sole input parameter, leaving the agent without semantics for agent_id.
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: assemble one appeal packet per receipt. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like verify_receipt or verdict_query, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'per receipt' implies it is used after a receipt exists, but the agent must infer that context.
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.