capabilitiesReturn the full machine-readable manifest of Kortex: every operation, its price in USD, its input schema and how to pay. Free.
When to use: Call this first if you have never used Kortex and want to know what it can do and what it costs.
Price: Free.
| 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, and it does disclose the key behavior: it returns a full manifest and is free. It doesn't mention side effects, but 'Return' strongly implies a read-only introspection call, and 'Price: Free' sets cost expectations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear usage note. The only minor flaw is redundancy: 'Free' appears both in the first sentence and again as 'Price: Free.'
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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, what that manifest contains, the cost, and when to call it. The word 'full' also signals that no pagination or partial result is involved.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no configuration is needed by presenting the tool as a direct call returning a manifest; there is no parameter schema for it to explain.
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 ('Return') and a concrete resource ('full machine-readable manifest of Kortex'), and specifies exactly what the manifest contains: every operation, its USD price, input schema, and payment instructions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check or resolve, which are operational actions rather than capability discovery.
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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first if you have never used Kortex.' It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives, but for a first-contact capability tool the context is clear enough.
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 targets a clearly distinct action: check evaluates a single URL, compare scores multiple URLs, resolve discovers services by description, history provides evidence, and watch tracks changes. Account tools (identity_create, credit_deposit, whoami) and capabilities/report are equally unambiguous. No two tools could plausibly be confused.
Names are readable and informative, but conventions are mixed: check, compare, report, resolve, and watch are single-word imperatives; capabilities, history, and whoami are nouns or phrases; and credit_deposit and identity_create reverse the usual verb_noun order. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though the names remain fairly intuitive.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a reputation/verification service: discovery, checking, comparison, history, watch, reporting, identity, credit, and account introspection. Each tool earns its place and the count fits squarely in the ideal range for a focused server.
The core lifecycle is well covered: discover, check, compare, track, report, and manage identity/credit. The only notable gaps are watch management (no list or unwatch tool) and account deletion/cleanup, but agents can work around these by simply stopping use. Overall, the surface is nearly complete for its stated purpose.