get_x402_manifestReturn the live x402 manifest with paid endpoint prices, Bazaar metadata, and buyer policy checks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | True when the upstream storefront call returned a 2xx response | |
| httpStatus | Yes | Upstream HTTP status code | |
| paymentRequired | No | True when the response is an x402 HTTP 402 payment challenge |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds the 'live' qualifier, indicating the manifest is fetched in real time, and enumerates the specific data elements (paid endpoint prices, Bazaar metadata, buyer policy checks). It does not mention potential network latency or rate limits, but for a read-only idempotent operation this is 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?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and each phrase adds specific value (live, paid endpoint prices, Bazaar metadata, buyer policy checks). There is no waste or redundancy.
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 simple (no parameters, read-only, idempotent) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structure. The description fully communicates what the tool does, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. For a zero-parameter manifest fetch, this is 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 has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter explanations to provide. With 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb 'Return' and a resource 'the live x402 manifest', and it lists the contents (paid endpoint prices, Bazaar metadata, buyer policy checks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_checkout_policies or payment_policy_decide, which serve different purposes.
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 implies usage by naming what is returned, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives from the sibling list, such as purchase_with_x402 or start_checkout. It has no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, relying on the agent to infer based on the manifest-focused purpose.
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 have clearly distinct purposes. Some overlap exists (e.g., dealanalyzer_analyze combines CashflowLens and WaterfallLens; action_safety_run includes DestructGuard evidence), but descriptions explicitly clarify scope so an agent can choose correctly.
Naming patterns are mixed: some verbs precede nouns (get_product, purchase_with_x402), others follow nouns (bond_analyze, portfolioguard_score), and some are multi-word (action_safety_quick_gate). This inconsistency makes tool selection less predictable.
At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end and spans diverse subdomains (safety, payments, financial analytics, storefront). While each tool serves a purpose, the broad scope makes it feel overloaded for a single server.
Core assurance workflows (safety, payment, verification) are covered, but gaps exist: no refund/cancellation tools, no attestation lookup, and no way to retrieve 30-day action-safety status records. Financial analytics also have limited coverage (no equities).