x402 audit + fix plan — the full per-route probe, then a prioritised remediation plan keyed to every finding with the exact change to make (header, JSON field, file path), the estimated share of machine buyers each defect costs you, and two free re-verification runs within 30 days so the fix is provable. Built for sellers who already serve a live 402 and are losing buyers to defects they cannot see.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations the description carries the full load, and it does disclose real behavioral substance: it runs the full per-route probe, the output is keyed finding-by-finding with the exact change (header, JSON field, file path), and two free re-verification runs are included within 30 days. Left undisclosed are cost/payment terms (significant given the x402 framing), runtime, and rate limits.
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?
It is front-loaded with the deliverable, which is correct. But the em-dash run-on crams probing, plan contents, cost estimates, and re-verification into one breath, and phrases like 'so the fix is provable' and 'defects they cannot see' are sales copy rather than operational 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?
It explains the deliverable well, which matters because there is no output schema. The critical hole is that a zero-parameter tool auditing 'per-route' never says how the target endpoint/site is identified (account config? auth context?), leaving the agent unable to confirm preconditions for invocation.
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 takes no parameters (additionalProperties: false, empty properties), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the zero-parameter baseline applies. No parameter-facing claims are made or contradicted.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource: a full per-route x402 audit plus a prioritised remediation plan. An agent can tell what comes out (findings keyed to exact fixes and estimated buyer-share cost). It never differentiates from the obvious sibling akari_endpoint_audit, so the reader cannot tell which audit tier to pick without opening both schemas.
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 closing line scopes the audience (sellers already serving a live 402 and losing buyers to invisible defects), which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use and no named alternative, even though akari_endpoint_audit sits right beside it in the sibling list. Usage is inferred rather than stated.
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.
