compareScore two or more resource URLs side by side on the same evidence, and say which one to pay.
When to use: Call this when you already have a shortlist and need to pick. Cheaper than calling check once per URL.
Price: US$0.003000 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resources | Yes | The URLs to rank. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it evaluates candidates on the same evidence, produces a payment recommendation, and costs US$0.003 per call. It does not detail any side effects beyond the paid API call, but the cost and decision-oriented outcome are disclosed.
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 three short, focused sentences: the core action, when to use it, and the price. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restating of the tool name or schema.
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?
For a single-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, usage context, output nature ('say which one to pay'), and cost. There is no output schema, but the description tells the agent what kind of answer to expect, which is sufficient for deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.
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 input schema already has full coverage of the `resources` parameter, including format, minItems, maxItems, and a description of what each URL represents. The description reinforces the array concept with 'two or more' and 'shortlist', but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 and resource: score multiple resource URLs side-by-side and recommend which one to pay. It clearly differentiates from the sibling `check` tool by emphasizing that it handles several URLs at once instead of checking a single URL.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this when a shortlist already exists and a pick needs to be made. It also names the main alternative, `check`, and notes that `compare` is cheaper than calling `check` once per URL, making the selection condition clear.
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.