Find x402 providers for a described capability and return them ranked, with the reason the top candidate was selected. Executes no payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| network | No | Optional CAIP-2 network, e.g. eip155:8453. | |
| capability | Yes | What you need, in words. Minimum 3 characters. | |
| maxPriceAtomic | No | Optional ceiling on the seller price, atomic units. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key side-effect fact ('Executes no payment') and the output behavior (ranked results with the top candidate's rationale). It doesn't cover ranking criteria or network/price filtering effects, but the core safety-relevant behavior is clear.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the output and the no-payment caveat. No filler or repeated schema text.
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 find-style tool with no output schema, it says enough about the return value (ranked providers and reason) and side effects (no payment). Still, it doesn't specify how network and maxPriceAtomic constrain results, what a provider result contains, or how to tell this from quote_paid_resource/check_provider. Given the sibling set, a little more routing would make it complete.
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 already documents all three parameters (capability, network, maxPriceAtomic), so coverage is 100%. The description only echoes capability as 'described capability' and adds nothing about how network or maxPriceAtomic influence ranking. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states the action (find), the resource type (x402 providers), the input concept (described capability), and the output (ranked list plus rationale for the top candidate). The closing 'Executes no payment' separates it from purchase_paid_resource. This is a specific, informative definition.
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?
It implies discovery use by saying 'Find providers' and explicitly says it executes no payment, which signals it is not the purchasing tool. However, it never names alternatives like quote_paid_resource or check_provider nor states when to prefer this over them. The guidance is mostly implicit.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by domain and action: crypto swap tools vs. x402 paid resource tools. However, analyze_crypto_swap and quote_crypto_swap both compare providers and costs, so an agent could confuse their outputs despite the note about signable transactions.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case: analyze, check, find, purchase, quote. The naming makes each tool's intended action and target resource immediately clear.
Six tools is well-scoped for the server's dual purpose of crypto swap quoting and x402 paid resource discovery/purchase. Each tool serves a distinct step in the workflow with no obvious bloat.
The paid resource workflow is well covered with find, check, quote, and purchase. The crypto swap side covers analysis and quoting, though execution is intentionally external via wallet-signed transactions, and there is no explicit post-purchase or post-swap status tool.
