Score whether web evidence is current enough for a consequential decision such as applying, bidding, pricing, outreach, procurement, or partner routing; returns reverify-before-action guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| claimClass | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the tool returns reverify-before-action guidance rather than a bare score. However, it omits details such as whether the tool performs a network fetch, how freshness is determined, or whether it is strictly read-only, so the disclosure is only partial.
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 entire description is one efficient sentence with no filler. The verb, object, and outcome are front-loaded, and the list of decision types adds concrete value 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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both inputs and return behavior. It describes the output only as 'reverify-before-action guidance' without specifying format, thresholds, or interpretation, and it lacks parameter semantics. This leaves an agent without enough information to reliably interpret the result.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It never mentions claimClass at all, and url is only indirectly referenced as 'web evidence'. This leaves one of the two parameters completely undefined and the other only implied, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 the specific verb 'Score' and identifies the resource as 'web evidence' currency, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like web_read (which reads content) and verify_commercial_truth (which checks truthfulness). The additional phrase 'returns reverify-before-action guidance' clarifies its assessment-oriented purpose.
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: any consequential decision such as applying, bidding, pricing, outreach, procurement, or partner routing. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some selection reasoning to the agent.
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 targets—Base reads, web research, opportunity search, and gating—but a few overlapping 'verify' and 'gate' tools could blur boundaries for an agent, especially verify_commercial_truth and verify_deadline_eligibility. Descriptions do differentiate them, so misuse is unlikely with careful prompting.
All names use snake_case and are internally consistent for the base_* cluster, but outside of that, some tool names are nouns while others are verbs (e.g., domain_intelligence, web_read, vendor_verification). This mixed convention makes it less predictable than a strict verb_noun pattern.
21 tools is on the high side of the comfortable range, but the server covers a broad scope: blockchain reads, web/content intelligence, opportunity discovery, commercial verification, and preflight gates. Each tool has a distinct role, though a few feel marginal rather than essential for a leaner setup.
The set covers the main workflows you'd expect: reading blockchain state, researching and verifying web snippets, tracking opportunities, and blocking bad actions with a fee preflight. The notable gap is an explicit execution step—there is no actual sending, bidding, or payment action beyond the x402 preflight. That is a reasonable boundary for a read/preflight tool suite.