Get full details + ready-to-paste call template for a service.
Returns the service card with payment, call, quality, resource samples,
and ready-to-use MCP/x402 call hints. Use this after `search` or
`ask_services` before paying/calling an external service.
Args:
slug: Service slug as returned by `search` items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Describes what it returns (service card with multiple components), but does not mention whether it is read-only, any side effects, or authentication requirements. Minimally adequate.
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?
Highly concise and well-structured: purpose stated first, then details, then parameter description. No redundant words.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input and usage context. Lists key components of the return value but does not need to elaborate due to output schema. Covers the necessary information.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the single parameter 'slug' as the service slug returned by 'search' items, adding useful context beyond the schema's basic string type.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves full details and a ready-to-paste call template for a service. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it should be used after 'search' or 'ask_services'.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this after `search` or `ask_services` before paying/calling an external service', providing clear context for when to use it. Does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes. However, 'search', 'search_mcp_servers', 'search_a2a_agents', 'search_resources', and 'ask_services' have overlapping discovery functions, though descriptions differentiate them (e.g., LLM ranking vs deterministic). This could slightly confuse an agent.
Naming conventions are mixed: some follow 'verb_noun' (e.g., ask_services, list_categories), some are single verbs (get, register, search, stats), and some use underscores (search_a2a_agents, search_mcp_servers). The pattern is not fully consistent but remains readable.
11 tools is well within the recommended 3-15 range for a directory server covering x402, MCP, and A2A services. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without bloat.
The toolset covers core directory operations: discovery (multiple search variants), details, registration, safety scanning, and stats. Missing update/delete for services is a minor gap but not critical for basic usage.