Unpaid probe: is this seller URL agent-ready? Fail-closed SSRF. Returns readiness, claimed vs observed, flags. Does not charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | https URL of the seller endpoint to probe. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| live | No | ||
| n_7d | No | ||
| flags | No | ||
| claimed | No | ||
| payable | No | ||
| observed | No | ||
| invocable | No | ||
| readiness | No | ||
| miss_reason | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it discloses that the call is free, that SSRF protection fails closed (a meaningful safety posture an agent should know), and the return shape. It omits error/edge-case behavior, but for a low-stakes probe tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.
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?
Four brief clauses with zero waste; the most decision-relevant traits (cost-free, fail-closed) are front-loaded and the return contents are conveyed in one sentence. Every element earns its place.
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 one-parameter probe with an output schema, the description is near-complete: purpose, safety posture, cost, and return contents are all present. No critical information an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing, aside from explicit sibling routing.
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% — the sole `url` parameter is already described as the https seller endpoint to probe. The description reinforces the seller-URL intent and implies https strictness via 'Fail-closed SSRF,' but adds little meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 action — probing a seller URL to assess whether it is 'agent-ready' — and enumerates concrete outputs (readiness, claimed vs observed, flags). This clearly differentiates it from the siblings preview and route, which imply rendering and navigation rather than validation.
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 'Unpaid probe' qualifier and 'Does not charge' signal that this is a cheap pre-check to run before costlier operations, which implies a usage context but the description never explicitly names the alternative tools or states when not to use it. The 'check-first' role is implied, not declared.
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.
preview and validate both describe unpaid, non-charging preflight checks that report claimed vs observed, so an agent could initially confuse which one to call for catalog discovery versus SSRF validation. route is clearly distinct as the live, evidence-generating paid check.
All tool names are lowercase single words, so the style is consistent and predictable. However, preview, route, and validate are terse and do not indicate their target resource or domain, making them less self-describing than a verb_noun convention.
Three tools is well-scoped for this purpose: one for catalog preflight, one for live route verification, and one for URL/SSRF safety validation. Each tool covers a distinct stage without noticeable redundancy.
The set covers the key pre-spend workflow: preflight discovery, live route verification, and seller URL validation. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to query the committed decision history or explicitly execute a payment, but the core verification surface is coherent.