proofrelay.adapt_x402_payment_proofMap public-safe x402 request, 402 challenge, payment payload, facilitator response, and resource response hashes into ProofRelay's payment_context evidence profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x402 | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool maps hashes into an 'evidence profile', implying a transformation, but it doesn't specify whether it computes anything, validates, or stores. No contradiction with annotations; no additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, required credentials) 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 a single sentence, which is efficient. It front-loads the action and lists the components. No wasted words, but it could benefit from a brief parameter-level clarification. It is structured acceptably for a concise description.
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 processes a complex nested object with many hashes, and there is an output schema. The description explains the high-level intent but not the semantics of each hash field, nor does it clarify how the output profile is used. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but lacks detail on field meanings and potential transformations.
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%, so the description must explain the 'x402' object and its fields. It only mentions 'request, 402 challenge, payment payload, facilitator response, and resource response hashes', which correspond to some fields, but doesn't explain the meaning of 'payment_required_hash' (402 challenge), 'facilitator_hash', or optional fields like amount, network, currency, replay_key. Most fields remain ambiguously named in the schema and are not elaborated in the description.
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 ('Map') and resource (x402 payment proof components into 'payment_context evidence profile'), which clearly indicates the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'normalize_payment_proof' by focusing on mapping hashes into a specific evidence profile, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'normalize_payment_proof' or other mapping 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?
The description implies usage when an x402 payment flow's hashes need to be structured into ProofRelay's payment_context profile. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. Sibling names like 'normalize_payment_proof' could be alternative, but no comparison is made.
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.
All 26 tools have distinct names that clearly indicate their purpose (e.g., adapt_agent_identity_evidence vs. build_audit_pack_manifest). No two tools have overlapping or ambiguous functions, even though some share similar verbs; the nouns and description contexts differentiate them effectively.
The tool names follow a uniform convention: all start with 'proofrelay.' and use lowercase verb_noun with underscores (e.g., proofrelay.build_bundle_draft, proofrelay.verify_signed_attestation). There is no mixing of camelCase, across the entire set.
The server exposes 26 tools, which exceeds the 'borderline' range of 16–25 and falls into the 'too many' category (>25). While the tools cover a broad domain (evidence verification, risk scanning, etc.), the large number might overwhelm agents and suggests that some tools could be merged or the scope narrowed.
The tool set covers a comprehensive range of operations—adapting, building, verifying, scanning, recommending, and summarizing—across multiple subdomains (identity, payment, audit, etc.). Minor gaps exist, such as missing tools for updating or deleting evidence, but overall the surface appears very complete for the described functionality.