Compares an x402 endpoint's price (or a given price/category pair) against market percentiles from our daily radar snapshot of the x402 ecosystem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| priceUsd | No |
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 mentions the data source ('daily radar snapshot') and the comparative nature ('against market percentiles'), but lacks details on side effects (likely none), authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits. The description provides some behavioral context but is incomplete.
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 sentence that is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded. Every part contributes meaning: the action, the two usage cases, and the comparison target. There is no redundant or unnecessary information.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the return structure beyond 'market percentiles'. While it covers input usage adequately for a simple tool, the lack of return format details reduces completeness. Sibling tool context is absent but not critical.
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 compensate. It effectively explains the meaning of the three parameters: url for the endpoint, category and priceUsd for the price/category pair. While it doesn't give formats or constraints beyond the schema, it adds essential usage semantics for each parameter.
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 tool compares an x402 endpoint's price or a given price/category pair against market percentiles. The verb 'compares' and specific resources (price, percentiles) distinguish it from sibling tools like check_endpoint and reseller_check, which likely serve different purposes.
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 explicitly outlines two usage modes: providing a url to get an endpoint's price, or providing a category and priceUsd to compare a given price. This gives clear context on when to use each input combination, though it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives to sibling tools.
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 clearly distinct purpose: check_endpoint performs a comprehensive diligence, compare_price compares prices to market percentiles, and reseller_check identifies possible upstream API resale. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: check_endpoint, compare_price, reseller_check. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for the niche domain of x402 endpoint diligence. Each tool earns its place, covering the essential operations without being too few or too many.
The tools cover the core diligence workflow: comprehensive check, price comparison, and reseller detection. There are no critical gaps, though a tool to fetch raw endpoint metadata without the full check could be a minor addition.