PAID (0.25 USDC). Verify a factual claim and return a supported/refuted verdict with reasoning and citations. Returns an x402 quote + payment instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | The claim to verify. | |
| sources | No | Optional list of source URLs/texts to check against. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool is paid (0.25 USDC), and it returns an x402 quote plus payment instructions. It also specifies the output nature (verdict, reasoning, citations). This is substantive disclosure, though it could mention failure modes or prerequisites, but the key cost and payment flow are covered.
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 two sentences and front-loaded with the critical cost information. Every word earns its place: it conveys the action, the payment requirement, the output type, and the x402 quote. There is no fluff or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema present. The description explains the essential workflow (quote + payment instruction) and the return format (verdict, reasoning, citations). It does not detail the output schema's structure or the payment execution steps, but those are covered by structured data. A minor gap is not explaining potential edge cases (e.g., ambiguous claims), but overall it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters. The description's mention of 'factual claim' directly maps to the 'claim' parameter but does not add new meaning for the parameters. The 'sources' parameter is not elaborated in the description, but since the schema fully documents it, a 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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and a clear resource ('a factual claim'), with a defined outcome ('supported/refuted verdict with reasoning and citations'). It is distinctive from siblings like trust_check or summarize, which do not focus on factual verification.
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?
The description implies usage: use when you need to verify a factual claim. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The 'PAID' notice hints at cost but does not guide on conditions for use.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with memory-specific tools like mnemos_store, mnemos_search, and mnemos_get_context differentiated by their descriptions. The main ambiguity is between mnemos_search and mnemos_get_context, which both retrieve memories but with different output formats, and summarize_demo is a deliberate clone of summarize though clearly marked as a demo.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools are prefixed with mnemos_ (mnemos_as_of, mnemos_store) while others use generic verb_noun names (code_review, fact_verify, notarize, summarize). This mix of styles makes it harder to predict functionality from tool names alone.
15 tools sits at the upper boundary of the typical range, but the server is advertised as memory-as-a-service while also offering many unrelated paid services (code review, fact verification, research briefs, summarization, trust checks, embeddings). This breadth makes the tool set feel overweighted and unfocused relative to the server's stated purpose.
The memory domain is well covered: provisioning, storing, searching, context retrieval, and bi-temporal reads are all present, with no obvious dead ends. The non-memory tools are single-purpose and do not require additional CRUD operations, so no critical gaps are apparent for their individual tasks.