Submit payment proof after sending stablecoins to a FactorGuide wallet address. For x402: provide tx_hash and chain. For MPP: use in-band Authorization header instead — no separate submission needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | Chain identifier, e.g. 'eip155:8453' or 'tempo:4217' | |
| tx_hash | Yes | On-chain transaction hash |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It adds useful protocol-specific behavior (x402 requires params, MPP does not), but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or response behavior. For a mutation-type tool, this leaves notable gaps.
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 with no redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the protocol-specific guidance is concise and well-structured.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, protocol variants, and parameter applicability. It does omit return-value details, but the simplicity of the tool and the clarity of the protocol distinction make it reasonably complete.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful conditionality by clarifying that tx_hash and chain are for x402 only, and for MPP they should be omitted. This goes beyond what the schema alone explains.
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 tool's verb ('Submit'), resource ('payment proof to a FactorGuide wallet address'), and scope ('after sending stablecoins'). It also distinguishes between x402 and MPP flows, making it unambiguous and distinct from the sibling diagnostic tools.
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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('after sending stablecoins'), and gives a clear exclusion for MPP ('use in-band Authorization header instead — no separate submission needed'), which is an explicit alternative path. This provides strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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 distinct operation: diagnostic, navigation, explanation, regime detection, outcome reporting, payment, and synergy detection. No overlapping purposes; even the two 'detect' tools are clearly separated by domain (regime vs. synergy).
Tool names are prefixed with 'factorguide_' but use a mix of single verbs (diagnose, explain, navigate) and noun_verb (regime_detect, synergy_detect) or verb_noun patterns (report_outcome, submit_payment). No consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern across the set.
With 7 tools, the server covers a well-scoped set of operations for factor analysis guidance. The count is neither too small to be useful nor too large to be unwieldy.
The core workflow (navigate, diagnose, explain, report_outcome, submit_payment) forms a coherent loop for factorization guidance and feedback. Two pending tools (regime_detect, synergy_detect) indicate planned expansion but do not create critical gaps.