Search external x402-protected APIs (not operated by APIHub, but callable via credits). Returns listings with endpoint counts, prices, and on-chain activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50) | |
| query | No | Search text matched against name/description | |
| category | No | Filter by category (ai, search, finance, media, other) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds context about x402 protection and credit usage. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, error behavior, or whether it's read-only. Additional behavioral details would be beneficial.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.
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?
Adequately covers purpose and return fields for a search tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema. Could mention pagination or sorting, but overall sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'matched against name/description' for query). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the tool searches external x402-protected APIs, distinguishes from internal APIs, and lists return fields (endpoint counts, prices, on-chain activity). Differentiates from sibling apihub_search likely for internal APIs.
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?
Provides context on when to use (external APIs callable via credits), implicitly contrasting with internal APIs. Lacks explicit when-not or alternative suggestions but sibling names imply differentiation.
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: balance checking, service discovery (list/search/get), paid calls (internal/external), content reading, and credit top-up. Overlaps like list_services vs. search are clearly differentiated by how they are used (browse vs. filter).
All tools follow a consistent `apihub_verb_noun` pattern in snake_case. Verbs like get, list, search, call, topup are paired with appropriate nouns, and modifiers like 'external' are used uniformly.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose as an API marketplace. Each tool covers a necessary part of the workflow—discovery, payment, invocation—without unnecessary duplication or missing essentials.
The tool set provides a complete lifecycle: service discovery (list, search, get), credit management (balance, topup), and API invocation (call, call_external, read_content). No obvious gaps for the intended use case.