Ask every provider behind a capability the same question at once and report where their answers differ. Use it when the answer matters enough to want it corroborated. Costs more than act: every provider called is paid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | ||
| providers | No | How many providers to ask. Omit for all of them. | |
| capability | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key non-obvious behavior: every provider called is paid, and it costs more than act. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for this tool the cost warning is the most important behavioral trait.
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 sentences with no filler: main behavior first, then usage guidance, then cost tradeoff. Every sentence earns its place.
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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and cost, but leaves capability and input unexplained. An agent would still need additional context to construct a correct 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 description coverage is only 33% (providers is documented, but capability and input are not). The description does not explain what capability values are valid, what should go into the input object, or how the providers count relates to available providers. It adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 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?
The description clearly states the verb and resource: ask every provider behind a capability the same question and report divergences. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings by the comparison scope, and it even names act as the cheaper alternative.
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 gives an explicit trigger condition: use when the answer matters enough to want corroboration. It also names act as the cheaper alternative, implying when not to use this tool.
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 maps to a distinct task: capability-level execution, tool-id execution, multi-provider comparison, discovery, reliability stats, vendor API proxying, and billing. The potential overlaps (act vs call vs compare) are clearly separated by failover, fixed-tool vs multi-provider behavior.
All names share a clean thruact_ prefix and lowercase single-word convention, which is easy to predict. The suffix is not strictly verb_noun because iq, proxy, and walet are noun-ish while act, call, compare, and discover are verbs, so there is a minor stylistic inconsistency.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each one has a clear purpose with no redundant duplication. The count matches a gateway-style product that needs discovery, execution modes, comparison, reliability, proxying, and wallet visibility.
The set covers the main user-facing workflow: discover capabilities, execute them, compare answers, inspect reliability, proxy to external vendors, and track spending. The only noticeable gap is that there is no explicit directory/list tool for connected vendor ids or all available tool ids, though discover and external workspace setup can partially work around that.