Free possible-reseller preview. Matches an endpoint's live unpaid 402 description/schema, or a supplied description and price, against a dated catalog of well-known upstream APIs and reports confidence, matched signals, and documented markup math without asserting resale as fact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| priceUsd | No | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it's a 'preview' that 'reports confidence... without asserting resale as fact', and mentions matching against 'live unpaid 402 description/schema' implying network fetching behavior. However, it doesn't state whether it's read-only, potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens with incomplete input combinations.
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 dense sentence, but every clause adds substantive detail—purpose, matching sources, catalog recency, output content, and a caveat. It's front-loaded with 'Free possible-reseller preview' and contains no filler, though splitting into two sentences would improve readability.
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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema parameter coverage. The description gives an overview of matching and output topics, but omits critical invocation details such as parameter combinations, whether any source is required, expected output structure, and limitations. An agent would likely struggle to correctly call this tool without further clarification.
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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explicitly mentions 'supplied description and price' and 'endpoint's live unpaid 402 description/schema' (implying url), giving meaning beyond plain property names. But it doesn't explain how the three parameters interact (e.g., whether url alone is sufficient, or whether description and price are alternatives to url), leaving ambiguity.
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 a specific purpose: 'Matches an endpoint's live unpaid 402 description/schema, or a supplied description and price, against a dated catalog of well-known upstream APIs' and reports confidence, signals, and markup math. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_endpoint and compare_price through the reseller-oriented matching behavior, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 usage context is implied ('Free possible-reseller preview' suggests use when investigating potential reselling), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over check_endpoint or compare_price, nor exclusions. It's not completely absent but stays at an implied level.
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 clear primary purpose: full diligence, price comparison, and reseller detection. However, check_endpoint subsumes the functionality of the other two, which could cause some confusion about which tool to use when only a specific check is needed.
Two tools follow the verb_noun pattern (check_endpoint, compare_price), while reseller_check deviates by using noun_noun. This is a minor inconsistency but the intent remains clear.
With only three tools, the server is tightly scoped for its purpose. Each tool earns its place by offering a distinct level of diligence, from full evaluation to targeted checks.
The domain of x402 endpoint diligence is fully covered: comprehensive checking, market pricing, and reseller identification. No obvious missing functionality for the stated purpose.