Execute a quoted purchase with buyer-signed authorisations. The caller signs; Axiom never holds a key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quote | Yes | Signed quote token from find_paid_resource or quote_paid_resource. | |
| authorizations | Yes | One { seller, fee } pair per candidate. Omit `fee` where the fee is waived. |
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 does reveal a key safety trait: the caller signs and Axiom never holds a key. However, it does not explain consequences of executing the purchase, such as whether the transaction is irreversible, what happens on failure, or how the authorization flow affects the buyer.
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 short sentences with no filler. The most important operational constraint is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. This is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
The tool is a transactional purchase action with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to cover more ground. It explains the signing model but omits expected return values, failure modes, and financial or side effects of executing the purchase. The description is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for an agent executing a paid purchase.
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 already documents both parameters thoroughly, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the caller must sign and that Axiom does not hold a key, which directly adds semantic value to the `authorizations` parameter. It also reinforces that the `quote` must come from a prior quoting step.
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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a quoted purchase.' It also differentiates from siblings by emphasizing the execution step as opposed to quoting or finding, and by noting the buyer-signed authorization requirement. The signing detail makes the purpose unmistakable even without reading the schema.
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 'a quoted purchase' implicitly signals that this tool should be used after a quote has been obtained, and that buyer-signed authorizations are required. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quote_paid_resource or find_paid_resource, nor does it describe 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.
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.
