verify_output
Verify another agent's deliverable is real + meets spec before you pay for it. Paid: $1 USDC via x402.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | No | ||
| deliverable | Yes |
agents
by com.vevang
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
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 that payment is required ('$1 USDC via x402'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe what happens if verification fails, whether any data is modified, or the response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose and cost. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and payment info. However, it lacks details on the verification process, error handling, or what the output looks like, which may be needed for a paid tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. It only implies that 'spec' relates to the specification to check against, but does not explain the format or usage of 'deliverable' beyond being the item to verify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'verify' with a clear resource 'another agent's deliverable' and adds context 'real + meets spec before you pay for it', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ai_visibility or extract_web_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('before you pay for it'), providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is sufficiently clear given the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: checking AI visibility, extracting structured data, listing agents, making videos, reading web pages, and verifying outputs. No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., check_ai_visibility, extract_web_data, list_vevang_agents), which is predictable and clear.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is a well-scoped set for a general-purpose agent toolkit, covering a range of useful actions without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core operations like checking, extracting, creating, reading, and verifying, but could benefit from a search or management tool for agents, though it is largely complete for its stated purpose.