Return the agent payment manifest: every way to pay (HTTP 402 + Bearer key, MCP, Stripe checkout, x402, RSL per-crawl), the exact 402 retry loop, what is always free, and the recommended path per use case. Same data as /api/payment.json.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation by stating it 'returns' data and references a JSON endpoint. No destructive or side effects are implied, and the mention of the retry loop adds transparency about potential HTTP behavior.
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, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and adding a reference for consistency in the second. Every word is informative with no 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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is self-contained. It covers all relevant aspects: payment methods, retry loop, free items, recommendations, and data source. Nothing essential 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains, which is beyond the schema's empty scope.
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 explicitly states the tool returns the agent payment manifest, detailing payment methods, retry loop, free items, and recommended paths. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pricing' by focusing on the full payment manifest and referencing a specific API endpoint.
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 use for exploring payment options and provides a recommended path per use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'get_pricing' or 'check_access', missing some clarity on when to choose this tool over others.
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 are clearly separated by resource type: articles, resources, corpus, stats, and articles. The main ambiguity is the access/pricing/payment cluster (`check_access`, `get_access_info`, `get_pricing`, `get_payment_info`), which agents could confuse despite distinct descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent `verb_noun` pattern, using `get_*`, `list_*`, and `search_*` prefixes. The naming stays readable and predictable even with broader tools like `search` and `search_resources`.
14 tools is within the typical well-scoped range, and each major retrieval goal has a dedicated tool. It is slightly heavy because the access/pricing/payment information could arguably be consolidated, but it is not bloated.
The server covers discovery, listing, searching, fetching, corpus ingestion, editorial articles, stats, and access/pricing verification. As a read-only content/access server, full CRUD is not expected, though there is no direct category-based batch filter beyond a general search.