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?
Without annotations, the description discloses it is free, matches against a 'dated catalog', and reports confidence/signals without asserting resale. However, it omits details on limitations (e.g., catalog age, error handling, rate limits) and does not clarify non-destructive nature beyond implication.
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, complex sentence. It front-loads key info ('Free possible-reseller preview') but packs many clauses, reducing readability. Could be split into shorter sentences for clarity.
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?
Given no output schema and sparse annotations, the description explains the tool's function and reports confidence, signals, and markup math. However, it lacks details on output format, error conditions, and interpretation of results, leaving gaps for an agent to understand completeness.
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%, but the description explains parameters indirectly: 'url' for endpoint, 'description' and 'priceUsd' for supplied data. It mentions 'matches an endpoint's live unpaid 402 description/schema, or a supplied description and price', providing some meaning, but fails to explicitly map each parameter to its role.
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 is a 'possible-reseller preview' that matches endpoint data against a catalog of upstream APIs, reporting confidence and signals. It specifies the verb 'matches' and the resource 'reseller preview', distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_endpoint' and 'compare_price' by focusing on reseller detection without asserting facts.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
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.