Paid ($0.25). Every drift finding with file path, line number, what is wrong, and the suggested fix - enough to open a PR without re-deriving anything. Verifiable against the free summary's findings_hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does well by disclosing the cost ($0.25), the granularity (every finding), the fields included, and verifiability against the free summary's hash. It does not mention output format or any rate limits, but for a parameterless report tool this is solid behavioral 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?
Two tightly packed sentences front-load the most important operational detail (paid $0.25), then list the report contents and the verification hook. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 parameterless report tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will get (all drift findings with locations, issues, and fixes), why it is worth paying for, and how to verify it against the free summary's hash. Nothing essential is missing for an agent deciding to invoke it.
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?
The tool accepts zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 identifies the resource as drift findings and specifies the exact contents: file path, line number, problem, and suggested fix. It distinguishes itself from the free summary by emphasizing its paid, comprehensive nature, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'generates' and does not differentiate from drift_report_x402.
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 'free summary's findings_hash' reference implies the workflow of using drift_summary first, then drift_report for full details, and 'enough to open a PR' signals when the detailed output is needed. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
The x402 variants are exact duplicates of three paid tools, differing only by payment rail, so an agent choosing between them can misselect if it does not account for x402/USDC. The rest are well separated: free summaries, paid details, single vs batch lookup, and verify_report each have clear roles.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a predictable feature_variant pattern like drift_summary, drift_report_x402, model_status_batch, and site_audit_summary. verify_report is the only action-styled outlier, but it still fits the readable and consistent naming approach.
Ten tools is not excessive for a service offering three product areas plus receipt verification, but three of those ten are x402 clones of existing tools, which adds redundancy. Deduplicating to seven logical operations would be tighter, so it earns a mild penalty.
The workflow surface is complete: every paid product has a free summary/preflight, paid full detail, and receipt verification, while model status offers single and batch lookup. Minor gaps such as no list-catalog or multi-URL site-audit batch exist, but they are not dead ends for the stated purpose.