Get details for a specific asset including its x402 payment endpoint. To purchase: send a GET request to the payment_url — you will receive an HTTP 402 response with Base L2 USDC payment instructions. Pay the invoice, then resend the request with the x-payment header to receive the data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | The asset ID (e.g. defi-yields-live, security-intel-live) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the x402 payment endpoint and describes the purchase protocol step-by-step (HTTP 402, Base L2 USDC, x-payment header), which is rich behavioral context. It does not explicitly state read-only status or discuss auth/rate limits, but the operation is clearly a read by name.
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 sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is detailed but directly relevant to using the returned endpoint. No redundant or 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?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the key output (payment endpoint) and the complete purchase workflow. This gives an agent all necessary context to use the tool correctly.
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 asset_id parameter, and the description adds no additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states 'Get details for a specific asset' with a specific verb and resource. The inclusion of 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling list_assets, which enumerates assets.
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?
Provides a clear usage scenario by explaining the payment flow for purchasing an asset. Implicitly contrasts with list_assets by saying 'specific asset', but does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use the tool.
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 two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_asset retrieves details for a specific asset including payment instructions, while list_assets provides an overview of all available assets in the marketplace. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_asset and list_assets), using snake_case and clear action verbs that align with their functions. The naming is predictable and readable throughout.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a marketplace gateway that presumably involves purchasing assets. Key operations like initiating purchases, managing transactions, or accessing purchased data are missing, making the toolset insufficient for the apparent scope.
The toolset is severely incomplete for a marketplace gateway. While it covers listing and getting asset details, there is no tool for actually purchasing assets (e.g., a buy_asset or purchase_asset tool), nor for handling post-payment data retrieval or transaction management, leaving significant gaps in the workflow.