gf.executeRoute an intent to the best verified capability. Native paid services return x402 challenges; caller funds are never spent automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| task | No | ||
| intent | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| arguments | No | ||
| mandate_id | No | ||
| budget_usdc | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| capability_id | No | ||
| idempotencyKey | No | ||
| max_spend_usdc | No | ||
| paymentSignature | No | ||
| preferred_payment | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does add important context: native paid services return x402 challenges and caller funds are never spent automatically. It does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency behavior, or how capability selection works, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers a critical safety behavior, making it easy to scan and act on.
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 tool with 13 undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this short description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. It communicates high-level routing and a key safety property but omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and error or consent flows.
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% across 13 parameters, and the description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. It never clarifies goal, task, intent, arguments, budget fields, paymentSignature, or mandate_id, so an agent has no textual help for populating the large optional parameter surface.
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 action ('Route an intent') and a distinct resource area ('best verified capability'), which clarifies the tool's job. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_capabilities and list_services, though 'best verified capability' remains somewhat vague.
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 intended use is implied: use this tool when an intent needs to be routed to a capability. However, the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not reference alternatives such as search_capabilities or quote, so an agent must infer the correct selection context.
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 purpose, particularly among the GCC analysis services (free_profit_check, gcc_opportunity_score, gcc_product_decision) and the status reporting tools (agent_commerce_status, payment_status, settlement_status, universal_status). While descriptions clarify differences, an agent may struggle to choose between these related services without careful reading.
All tools use the 'gf.' prefix and snake_case, providing a consistent base. However, the pattern mixes noun_phrases (agent_budget, payment_status) with verb-based names (execute, quote) and adjective_noun combinations (free_profit_check), making the naming somewhat inconsistent in style though still readable.
At 18 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 15-tool sweet spot but remains reasonable for a comprehensive commerce gateway server that covers discovery, quoting, payment, status, and analytics. The scope justifies the number without feeling bloated.
The tool surface covers the main lifecycle: discovering capabilities, obtaining quotes, executing transactions, checking payment and settlement status, monitoring provider health, and reviewing metrics. Minor gaps exist (no explicit refund/cancel or merchant account creation), but these are not critical to the core workflows.