Get a firm x402 price + payment requirements for any Commerce tool BEFORE committing — so an agent (or its spend policy) can budget. Returns the USD price, pricing class, network, and the x402 'accepts' block to construct the payment. x402-payable (read class).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool_name | Yes | The Commerce tool to price (e.g. pitchiq_v1_booking_book_guest_slot). Call tools/list to see what's available. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it is 'x402-payable (read class)', indicating a non-destructive read operation. Discloses return fields (USD price, pricing class, network, x402 block). No contradictions.
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 concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose, timing, and return value. No extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to construct the payment.
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 100% for the single parameter. Description adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose and providing an example, plus suggesting to call tools/list to see available options, which goes beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'firm x402 price + payment requirements for any Commerce tool'. Distinguishes from siblings by being a pricing tool before committing, while siblings are booking/search operations.
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?
Explicitly says to use 'BEFORE committing' and mentions budgeting purpose. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies it's a prerequisite check. No alternatives listed, but siblings are clearly different domains.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose covering booking, brain access, commerce quoting, and three separate discovery searches (creators, curators, podcasts). No two tools overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern 'pitchiq_v1_<category>_<action>', with consistent snake_case and clear categorization (booking, brain, commerce, discover). Actions are descriptive and uniform within categories.
Eight tools cover the server's apparent scope (booking, knowledge graph, discovery) without redundancy or omission. The count is well-scoped for the intended use cases.
While booking and discovery are reasonably complete, the brain component lacks write operations (create/update wiki pages), which limits agent ability to modify knowledge. The surface feels slightly incomplete for full workspace management.