x402 paid cross-authority licensing comparison. Each authority is freshness-gated independently; payment verification precedes execution and unsupported candidates are withheld.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful non-obvious behaviors: independent freshness gating per authority, payment verification before execution, and withholding of unsupported candidates. This goes well beyond a generic 'compares' statement, though failure modes and side effects are not covered.
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 two dense sentences with no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded. However, 'x402' is unexplained jargon, and the second sentence packs in multiple behaviors without elaboration.
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?
This is a paid, multi-authority comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must do substantial work. It omits payload structure, output/return semantics, and what 'licensed' actually means in the comparison. The behavioral notes are useful but not sufficient for safe invocation.
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 input schema is an opaque payload object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'candidates' but never explains what the payload must contain, how authorities are selected, or how candidates are represented. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call from this 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 action and scope: 'cross-authority licensing comparison.' This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_supported_authorities, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling.
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 phrase 'paid cross-authority licensing comparison' implies the tool is for comparing licensing requirements across multiple authorities, and it mentions freshness gating. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives among the sibling tools.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: discovery, metadata, evidence health, single-authority preflight, and cross-authority comparison. There is minimal overlap between paid decision tools and free supporting tools.
Names are readable and domain-relevant, but they mix verb-led names like compare_licensing_requirements and list_supported_authorities with noun-led names like licensing_source_status and taxi_phv_info. There is also minor inconsistency between 'licence' and 'licensing'.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for a focused regulatory decision layer. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full decision workflow: discovery, service metadata, evidence health checks, single-authority preflight, and cross-authority comparison. No obvious dead ends or missing core operations are apparent for the stated purpose.