Free. Look up one model id in the signed catalog: current, deprecated, or retired, plus replacement, earliest_retirement, source, and retrieved. Returns an honest "unknown: not in catalog" for an id this catalog does not track - never conflated with "current". Includes the catalog snapshot's signed receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | Yes | the model id to look up, e.g. "gpt-4o" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral guarantee: unknown IDs return a distinct 'unknown: not in catalog' rather than being conflated with 'current', and it mentions the signed receipt. It does not cover error conditions or auth, but the operation is a simple read.
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 compact and information-dense, opening with 'Look up one model id' and covering statuses, unknown handling, and signed receipt in four short sentences with no filler. Every sentence 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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key behavioral case and return content. It could improve by explicitly directing multi-id use cases to model_status_batch, but that is not needed to invoke this tool correctly.
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 schema fully documents the single model_id parameter with 100% coverage, including an example ('gpt-4o'). The description adds only the context of the signed catalog and unknown handling, contributing modest value beyond the schema's existing documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('look up') with a clear resource ('one model id in the signed catalog') and enumerates the returned status values (current, deprecated, retired) plus additional fields. Its single-id scope implicitly distinguishes it from sibling model_status_batch.
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 clearly scopes the tool to a single model lookup, which differentiates it from batch siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them, so guidance is clear context without explicit exclusions.
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.