Return a free, side-effect-free quote and exact input example for one paid product. Does not create a payment challenge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the operation is free, side-effect-free, and does not create a payment challenge—key behavioral traits that an agent needs to safely invoke the tool.
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 sentences with no filler. The core behavior and safety profile are stated immediately, and the exclusion is placed at the end without 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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what the tool returns, that it is free and side-effect-free, and that it does not initiate a payment. No critical information for invoking it correctly is missing.
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 only documents that 'product' is a required string with no enum or description. The description adds that it is for 'one paid product' and that an exact input example is returned, but it does not clarify what values the 'product' string should take or how the example is formatted.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource: a free, side-effect-free quote and exact input example for one paid product. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from payment-related siblings by stating 'Does not create a payment challenge.'
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs a free quote and example input for a paid product. It also provides an exclusion by clarifying that this tool does not create a payment challenge, which helps differentiate from payment-oriented siblings, though it does not name alternatives directly.
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.
The four get_*_ayment tools all create live x402 challenges and differ only by product, while get_quote and get_example_payment both provide example input data — creating real selection ambiguity. Descriptions do clarify the product and side-effect differences, but an agent must read carefully to avoid picking the wrong one.
All tools use lowercase snake_case with a verb prefix, and the get_X_payment pattern for challenge creation is consistent. However, 'get' is overloaded to cover both free reads that create no side effects and challenge creation calls, and get_payment_preflight_payment has a redundant 'ayment' that muddies the naming pattern.
Eight tools map cleanly to the paid-evidence workflow: status check, quote, four product-specific challenge creators, payment submission, and a capability-request escape hatch. Each tool earns its place, and the count is well-scoped for a niche paid API.
The core quote→challenge→submit→result flow is covered, and request_capability is a good gap-filler for missing products. Minor gaps remain: there is no explicit result-retrieval tool beyond request_id replay, and product discovery is implicit through get_quote and get_service_status rather than a dedicated list endpoint.
