A human must claim and pay before EIN.LLC files. Agents may assess, prepare, and read status.
Scored across 7 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct roles across assessment, state comparison, EIN guidance, application preparation/status, and compliance deadlines. The main ambiguity is get_formation_contract, whose name could be mistaken for a legal formation contract rather than an OpenAPI document, though the description clarifies it.
All tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern such as assess_formation, compare_states, get_application_status, and prepare_application. The naming is predictable and easy to scan.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a formation/EIN advisory and application-preparation server. Each tool appears to serve a distinct step in the workflow without obvious redundancy.
The set covers formation assessment, state comparison, EIN route guidance, application preparation/status, and compliance deadlines, which is a coherent lifecycle for a non-filing advisory server. Minor gaps include limited state coverage in compare_states and no EIN application preparation/status tool, but the core workflow is covered.
Assess formation need without checkout. Anonymous. An SSN-shaped or ITIN-shaped field is refused and nothing is stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | Trimmed and truncated to 500 characters. | |
| hasEin | No | Other values are treated as unknown, not rejected. | |
| hasUsEntity | No | Other values are treated as unknown, not rejected. | |
| intendedEmail | No | Optional. When a valid email is supplied it is stored on the assessment; later prepare must use the same recipient. Invalid values are ignored, not rejected. | |
| selectedState | No | Trimmed and truncated to 80 characters. | |
| jurisdictionKnown | No | Other values are treated as unknown, not rejected. | |
| foreignOwnedCaution | No | ||
| providerRequiresEin | No | Other values are treated as unknown, not rejected. | |
| providerRequiresUsEntity | No | Other values are treated as unknown, not rejected. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the call is anonymous, SSN/ITIN-shaped input is refused rather than accepted, and no sensitive data is retained. It does not, however, reconcile this with readOnlyHint=false (and the schema's note that an assessment with intendedEmail is stored), so an agent could misread "nothing is stored" as "no record is created."
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?
Three short sentences, with the core action and the no-checkout scoping front-loaded, then the anonymity/PII guarantee. Every clause earns its place; only the clipped "An SSN-shaped or ITIN-shaped field" phrasing is slightly under-specified.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key safety behaviors an agent must know before calling. The main omission is guidance on the fully optional 9-parameter surface and the default/unknown-value behavior when inputs are omitted.
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 description coverage is 89% across 9 parameters, and the schema documents enum fallbacks, trimming, and email handling itself. The description contributes nothing parameter-specific, so baseline 3 applies despite no compensating gap to fill.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("Assess formation need") and scopes it with "without checkout," which implicitly separates it from the checkout-oriented sibling prepare_application. It stops short of naming any sibling outright, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
"Without checkout" implies this is the pre-application, no-commitment assessment step versus prepare_application, so the usage context is inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read-only rows for Wyoming, Delaware, New Mexico, Florida, Texas, and California. Each row has the formation fee, the annual fee or report, franchise-tax notes, and the registered-agent requirement. Every figure has a government source URL and a retrieved date. This does not give legal advice, file, open an account, or take payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: every figure carries a government source URL and a retrieved date, and it explicitly disclaims legal advice, filing, account opening, and payment.
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?
Three tight sentences: scope first, then row contents and provenance, then explicit non-capabilities. No filler and nothing buried.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description still names the row fields and provenance. It is complete enough to call correctly, with the only gap being the absence of sibling-routing guidance, which is a usage rather than completeness concern.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not fabricate parameter behavior, and the fixed six-state scope is stated inline where a filter parameter might otherwise be expected.
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 states a specific resource and scope: read-only rows for six named states, each containing formation fee, annual fee/report, franchise-tax notes, and registered-agent requirements. An agent can tell what data comes back without opening the schema, though the 'compare' framing in the name is not reflected as an explicit comparative verb in the text.
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?
Usage is implied (pull state-level cost/fee data for these six states), and the closing sentence rules out adjacent behaviors like filing, opening accounts, or payments. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings such as assess_formation or get_compliance_deadlines, so routing remains inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read-only IRS EIN channels for whether the applicant has an SSN or ITIN and whether the principal business is in the United States, plus EIN.LLC's qualified timing. A principal business outside the United States is offered phone, fax, and mail only. It does not state another vendor's day count. It does not file or take payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hasSsnOrItin | Yes | ||
| principalBusinessInUs | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The value-add is the explicit limitation on what it does not do (no filing, no payment, no third-party day counts), which is modest but useful boundary context.
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 content is reasonably brief, but the opening clause is grammatically tangled and the vendor-specific asides ('EIN.LLC's qualified timing', 'another vendor's day count') sit awkwardly rather than front-loading the core answer. Not padded, but not clean either.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description states what the answer covers (channels by SSN/ITIN and US location, plus timing). Given the low parameter complexity and existing annotations, it is close to sufficient, though the mapping of inputs to outcomes could be sharper.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does map both parameters conceptually ('whether the applicant has an SSN or ITIN', 'whether the principal business is in the United States'). However, this largely restates the self-documenting parameter names, and the yes/no/1/0/true/false enum forms are never addressed.
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 names a specific resource (IRS EIN application channels/route) and the inputs that select the answer (SSN/ITIN status, principal business in the US), so an agent can tell it is an explainer rather than an action. The phrasing is awkward – 'Read-only IRS EIN channels for whether...' – which slightly obscures the verb, but the intent is recoverable.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or sibling routing is given versus assess_formation, compare_states, or prepare_application. Negative scope statements ('does not file or take payment', 'does not state another vendor's day count') imply boundaries but don't state when this tool should be chosen over an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read redacted application status. Pass AgentGrant exactly as the HTTP route expects: Authorization bearer of the opaque application grant, not a Firebase ID token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| AgentGrant | Yes | Revocable, expiring status-only token issued by the owner. Not a Firebase ID token. Pass this value as the bearer token, the same Authorization header the HTTP route expects. Not a Firebase ID token. | |
| applicationId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond that: the output is 'redacted' and the call requires a specific credential (an opaque application grant passed as an Authorization bearer, explicitly not a Firebase ID token), which is exactly the kind of auth context annotations cannot convey.
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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The token caveat is slightly repetitive of the schema wording, but nothing is wasted overall.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the auth requirement is covered. What is missing is any meaning for applicationId (where it comes from, what an invalid/expired grant yields), leaving a gap for a tool whose only failure mode is likely a bad credential.
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 50%: AgentGrant is already documented in the schema (with the same 'not a Firebase ID token' point, so the description is largely redundant there), while applicationId has no description in either place. The description compensates for neither the undocumented applicationId nor adds format detail, so it sits at the baseline.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read redacted application status'), which is clear and unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from its siblings (prepare_application, get_formation_contract, etc.), leaving the agent to infer that this is the status-read path rather than an alternative to them.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named or excluded. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'status' — the agent gets no criteria for choosing this over prepare_application or get_formation_contract.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read-only dated obligations. Form 5472 with pro forma Form 1120 is conditional on reportable transactions and entity status, not an automatic yearly filing for every foreign-owned SMLLC. Unknown transaction facts are unknown/needs-review. The $25,000 figure is the IRS failure-to-file penalty quote, plus the formation state's sourced annual report or franchise tax. It does not file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityType | Yes | ||
| formationDate | Yes | ||
| formationState | Yes | ||
| ownerResidency | Yes | ||
| partVTransactions | No | ||
| reportableTransactions | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add behavioral context — and it does: 'It does not file' preempts the agent assuming an action, and 'Unknown transaction facts are unknown/needs-review' discloses how unknown inputs are reported. It falls short of describing rate limits, auth needs, or output shape.
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 short and the purpose sentence is front-loaded, so there is little wasted length. But the remaining sentences are dense tax-jargon assertions (Form 5472/1120 pairing, the $25,000 penalty quote) with no clear structure or ordering, forcing the agent to parse domain claims to find actionable guidance.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a six-parameter, tax-domain tool the description gives useful behavioral caveats but still omits input semantics and any when-to-use framing, leaving it only minimally complete.
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?
Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It only partially relates a couple of inputs to behavior ('conditional on reportable transactions and entity status,' unknown enum handling) while leaving entityType, ownerResidency, formationState, and formationDate entirely unexplained; the $25,000/penalty sentence describes output content, not inputs.
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 opening phrase 'Read-only dated obligations' does convey that the tool returns dated compliance obligations, so an agent gets a rough sense of the resource. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, never says 'deadlines' explicitly, and does nothing to differentiate it from the six sibling formation/compliance tools.
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 impliedly scopes usage by noting Form 5472 is 'conditional on reportable transactions and entity status, not an automatic yearly filing,' which hints at when the tool is relevant. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to siblings like assess_formation or prepare_application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return the live agent OpenAPI document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'live', implying the document is generated fresh at request time rather than being a static snapshot — a small but genuine behavioral detail, though it says nothing about cost, latency, or versioning.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient rather than verbose, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being maximally informative.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and with no parameters the schema burden is minimal. However, it still leaves the agent without any indication of what the returned contract is used for or when it is the right call, which is a meaningful gap for a zero-arg tool whose only value is its result.
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 zero parameters, so according to the rubric this is a baseline 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain and the description does not need to compensate for anything here.
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 has a verb and object ('Return the live agent OpenAPI document'), which is better than tautology, but 'agent OpenAPI document' is opaque relative to the tool name 'get_formation_contract' — an agent cannot easily tell what artifact it will receive or how it relates to formation. Siblings (prepare_application, get_application_status, etc.) are distinct topics, but the description does nothing to position itself among them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this rather than the other six sibling tools, and no stated prerequisites or context. The agent must infer that this is a contract/spec retrieval step, likely feeding other tools, with nothing explicit to confirm that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Prepare a provisional application and return the human claim URL. A human must claim and pay. This does not file, charge, or approve. An explicit operator request for existing formation assistance can attach a provisional non-actionable review to an eligible insufficient_information assessment. It does not recommend formation or start checkout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessment | No | ||
| operationId | No | Optional caller idempotency key for a bound prepare. Trimmed and limited to 200 characters. When omitted, the key is prepare:{assessmentId}:{intendedEmailNormalized} and is specific to that assessment and recipient, and a missing key still recovers the application already bound to that assessment. An explicit key is not namespaced by assessment: it determines one durable application id. Reusing it for a different assessment returns 409 operation_identity_conflict. Supplying a different explicit key when this assessment is already bound returns the same 409, does not reserve that key, and returns no claim token. The same assessment with a different stored preparation returns 409 operation_payload_mismatch. Both leave the application, assessment, and authority unchanged and return no claim token. The same assessment, recipient, and stored preparation returns the original application and claim token and does not write again. | |
| preparation | No | ||
| assessmentId | No | When present, the server-stored assessment is bound in one transaction with the application and authority. Same assessment plus intended email recovers the same application when the stored preparation matches. Facts and intended recipient must match the stored assessment. A different assessment cannot reuse an explicit operationId. | |
| intendedEmail | No | Trimmed/lowercased; invalid or missing email produces an incomplete application, not a claim token. | |
| assessmentOutcome | No | Fallback when preparation.assessmentOutcome is absent and no assessmentId/assessment is bound. Trimmed/truncated to 80 characters. Unknown values are refused. already_satisfied and not_needed_now are refused. insufficient_information cannot issue a claim token unless operatorRequestsExistingFormationAssistance is exactly true on an eligible stored assessment. A caller enum is not a server recommendation. Unbound allowed enum remains provisional advice, not actionable authorization. | |
| operatorRequestsExistingFormationAssistance | No | Optional. Accepted only when exactly true. With a stored assessmentId, an eligible insufficient_information assessment (goal present, no US entity, EIN not already held, no affirmed provider entity or EIN-only requirement) can issue a provisional non-actionable claim. The flag does not affirm a provider requirement, recommend formation, or authorize filing, quote, or payment. String values are refused. Omitted on every other path, including required_for_selected_path. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already declared, the description still adds real value by naming what is explicitly NOT done (filing, charging, approving, starting checkout) and by stating a human must claim and pay. The only gap is that it does not describe the side effects that actually occur (binding assessment, application, and authority).
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 core behavior and its non-effects are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The third and fourth sentences are dense but each carries a distinct constraint; some redundancy exists between 'does not file, charge, or approve' and 'does not start checkout'.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly covers the human-claim handoff and the non-actionable nature of the tool. Eligibility rules and idempotency details live in the schema, which is acceptable given their depth, though the description alone would not let an agent infer the eligibility conditions.
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 71%, below the high-coverage threshold, and the schema itself already documents operationId idempotency, assessmentOutcome refusal cases, and the operator flag in detail. The description reinforces the operator-request/insufficient_information relationship but adds little parameter semantics beyond what the schema says.
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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Prepare a provisional application') plus the concrete output ('return the human claim URL'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like assess_formation or get_application_status, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
It sets important boundaries ('does not file, charge, or approve', 'does not recommend formation or start checkout') and describes one conditional path tied to insufficient_information plus an operator request. However, it never states when to call this instead of assess_formation or get_application_status, and the conditional path requires schema knowledge to act on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
prepare_application2 fields changedInput schema / properties / assessmentOutcome / descriptionPrevious value: -"Fallback when preparation.assessmentOutcome is absent and no assessmentId/assessment is bound. Trimmed/truncated to 80 characters. Unknown values are refused. already_satisfied and not_needed_now are refused. insufficient_information cannot issue a claim token. Unbound allowed enum remains provisional advice, not actionable authorization."New value: +"Fallback when preparation.assessmentOutcome is absent and no assessmentId/assessment is bound. Trimmed/truncated to 80 characters. Unknown values are refused. already_satisfied and not_needed_now are refused. insufficient_information cannot issue a claim token unless operatorRequestsExistingFormationAssistance is exactly true on an eligible stored assessment. A caller enum is not a server recommendation. Unbound allowed enum remains provisional advice, not actionable authorization."Input schema / properties / operatorRequestsExistingFormationAssistanceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional. Accepted only when exactly true. With a stored assessmentId, an eligible insufficient_information assessment (goal present, no US entity, EIN not already held, no affirmed provider entity or EIN-only requirement) can issue a provisional non-actionable claim. The flag does not affirm a provider requirement, recommend formation, or authorize filing, quote, or payment. String values are refused. Omitted on every other path, including required_for_selected_path.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}assess_formationcompare_statesexplain_ein_routeget_application_statusget_compliance_deadlinesget_formation_contractprepare_applicationAgent payment readiness and AI visibility checks, $1 per call over MPP or prepaid credits.
Pay-per-call agent infrastructure: file storage & handoff, compute tools, messaging, e-sign, KYC.
Agents pay for work and prove what happened.
US patent status for agents: applications, office actions, owners, PTAB, claims, monitors.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.