Purchase APIHub credits via x402 (USDC on Base). Returns payment instructions including a web URL for browser-based payment, a CLI command, and raw x402 requirements for agents with wallet support. Credits are added to your account instantly once payment confirms on-chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_dollars | Yes | Amount to top up in USD. Minimum $5.00, maximum $10,000 per call. Example: 10 for $10. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description discloses return of payment instructions and instant credit addition, but lacks details on failure behavior, idempotency, or rate limits.
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 purpose, no waste. However, could be slightly more structured to separate payment methods.
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?
Describes return value comprehensively (web URL, CLI command, raw x402 requirements) despite no output schema. Adequate for a payment 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?
Schema coverage is 100%. Description repeats minimum/maximum amounts from schema and adds an example, providing marginal extra clarity 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 clearly states the action ('Purchase APIHub credits via x402') and the resource (APIHub credits). It distinguishes from sibling tools like apihub_balance or apihub_call by focusing on credit top-up.
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?
Usage is implied (when you need credits), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, or prerequisites like needing a wallet or USDC balance.
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.