Prepare a payment/payout route quote. Unknown provider/FX fees remain unknown; no money moves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payin_rail | No | ||
| payout_rail | No | ||
| amount_minor | Yes | ||
| input_currency | No | ||
| output_currency | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'no money moves'. It adds value beyond the annotations by warning that unknown provider/FX fees remain unknown, which is a useful limitation for an agent to know before relying on the quote.
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 exceptionally concise at two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose first, then places the key caveats ('unknown fees remain unknown', 'no money moves') immediately after, so an agent can quickly grasp both function and limitations.
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 five parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain required inputs, return values, or how the quote is structured. While annotations cover the safety profile, an agent would still struggle to know what amount_minor should contain and what the response looks like, making this definition incomplete.
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%, and the description provides essentially no parameter-level guidance. The required amount_minor parameter is never explained, and the optional rail and currency parameters are only weakly implied by the phrase 'payment/payout route' without meaningful mapping to 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 uses the specific verb 'Prepare' and the resource 'payment/payout route quote', clearly stating what the tool does. The phrase 'no money moves' explicitly distinguishes it from execution or payout tools, leaving no ambiguity about its non-transactional nature.
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 implies this tool is for obtaining a quote rather than moving money, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly name when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_best_route or request_payout, nor does it state which conditions would call for those 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.
There are multiple clusters of near-duplicate tools: earn, earn_now, earn_loop, find_money_opportunities, search_global_earn, and several rank_real_profit_opportunities variants. Even with descriptions, an agent would struggle to choose reliably among dozens of overlapping search, earn, and ranking entry points.
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern, which provides some consistency. However, the set mixes prefixes like agentlot_, standalone verbs like earn and me, and many semantically interchangeable verbs such as find, search, discover, rank, route, and list applied to similar objects.
With 124 tools, this is an extreme mismatch for a coherent server surface. Even for a broad marketplace, this many entry points creates severe navigation overhead and includes multiple generations of similar tools instead of a disciplined, minimal API.
The tool set broadly covers marketplace lifecycles: listings, requests, orders, delivery, disputes, payouts, projects, and assets. However, there are notable gaps such as updating/unpublishing listings, canceling/refunding orders, and other core lifecycle management operations that would be expected in a complete marketplace surface.