gf.sa_landed_costSaudi import landed-cost calculation. Price: 0.25 USDC via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | ||
| shipping | No | ||
| insurance | No | ||
| referralCode | No | ||
| vat_rate_pct | No | ||
| duty_rate_pct | No | ||
| product_value | Yes | ||
| paymentSignature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 0.25 USDC price via x402, but does not explain whether this initiates payment, requires an existing payment signature, or what side effects or outputs occur.
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 very brief and front-loaded, naming the core purpose before the pricing detail. It is not bloated, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter 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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 8 parameters, this description leaves too much unknown: what the result looks like, how the x402 payment is handled, and how optional fields affect the calculation. It is minimally functional but not adequate for safe autonomous 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds only general context about landed cost. It does not clarify ambiguous parameters like referralCode, paymentSignature, currency defaults, or whether shipping and insurance are optional despite being non-required.
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 clearly states this tool performs a Saudi import landed-cost calculation. It is specific enough to distinguish it from generic pricing tools like gf.quote or gf.marketplace_fee_quote, though it does not explicitly name siblings.
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 choose this tool over alternatives, no scenario examples, and no mention of prerequisites such as requiring a prior payment or x402 session. The paid nature is mentioned but not contextualized.
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.