Check whether a job, RFP, grant, auction, marketplace listing, partner program, pricing page, or commercial offer is still live; verify deadline and economics, flag contradictions/stale evidence, and return RELEASE or HOLD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With empty annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does: it states the tool verifies liveness, checks deadline and economics, and flags contradictions. The RELEASE/HOLD return contract is explicit. It stops short of describing what 'verify' entails operationally (e.g., staleness rules), but the behavioral profile is clear and non-destructive.
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 purpose is front-loaded and the sentence is reasonably tight, but the run-on enumeration of offer types (job, RFP, grant, auction, marketplace listing, partner program, pricing page) adds length without much marginal value. It earns its place but could be trimmed.
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?
With no annotations, a single undocumented param, and no output schema, the description must carry everything. It explains the verification scope and the RELEASE/HOLD verdict, but never defines what the url parameter means, what a contradiction looks like, or the shape/payload of the verdict. Adequate but incomplete.
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 coverage is 0% and the description never names 'url' explicitly, leaving the single parameter's role implicit. An agent must infer that url points to the offer being verified. With one required param and zero coverage, the description should link the parameter to the verification target but does not.
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 states the exact object of verification (live status of a job, RFP, grant, auction, marketplace listing, partner program, or pricing page), what gets checked (deadline, economics), and the concrete return verdict (RELEASE or HOLD). That is a crisp, unambiguous statement of 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 explains what the tool verifies but never differentiates it from closely overlapping siblings such as verify_deadline_eligibility, source_freshness_score, or commercial_terms_diff, all of which perform a subset of this work. An agent cannot tell when to route here versus to those tools, so usage guidance is thin.
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.