get_merchant_profileGet the full profile of a Coal merchant including products (with images), paywalls, supported networks/tokens, and 0G Storage proof. Returns rendered Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| merchantId | Yes | Coal merchant ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return format ('rendered Markdown') and the specific data fields included, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It does not cover error handling or not-found scenarios, but the annotations already establish the safe, read-only nature, so the added context is valuable.
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: the first lists what is retrieved, the second states the output format. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary words.
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 single-parameter read-only operation with clear annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently captures the tool's purpose, contents, and return format. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's definition of merchantId as 'Coal merchant ID'. The parameter is simple and self-explanatory, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full profile of a Coal merchant'), enumerating the specific data included (products, paywalls, networks/tokens, 0G proof). This clearly defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_merchants or search_products by focusing on a single merchant's comprehensive profile.
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 usage: to retrieve a complete profile for a known merchant ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and sibling list.
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.
Several tools overlap in the product discovery and payment status domains. discover_merchants, search_products, and get_merchant_profile all relate to finding products/merchants, though descriptions clarify intended use. Similarly, check_paywall, get_checkout_status, and verify_receipt all deal with payment status/verification, creating potential agent confusion.
Most tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (check_paywall, create_checkout, download_product, get_0g_health, etc.). The one outlier is agent_wallet_status, which is a noun phrase instead of verb-first, but it still uses underscores and fits thematically.
13 tools is within the ideal range and the server covers payments, product discovery, and verification. A few tools like get_0g_health and setup_instructions feel tangential to the core payment flow, making the set slightly heavier than necessary but still reasonable.
The payment lifecycle is well covered: discover/search products, pay via checkout or direct merchant payment, download digital goods, and verify receipts. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit refund or transaction history tool, but agents can work around these by using existing verification and wallet status tools.