gf.search_capabilitiesRank native and verified provider capabilities by intent, budget, region, protocol and payment method.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| task | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| intent | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| protocol | No | ||
| budget_usdc | No | ||
| max_spend_usdc | No | ||
| preferred_payment | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'Rank' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether results are limited, what response shape to expect, or any side effects.
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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action and criteria. It could be more structured given the parameter complexity, but it has no fluff.
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 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this single-sentence description is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits required/optional param semantics, the meaning of goal/task/query/limit, and expected return behavior.
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 must compensate. It maps a few parameters ('intent', 'budget', 'region', 'protocol', 'preferred_payment') but leaves 'goal', 'task', 'limit', and 'query' semantically unexplained, which is insufficient for a 10-parameter tool.
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 ('Rank') and identifies the resource ('native and verified provider capabilities') with explicit filtering criteria. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings such as gf.list_services or gf.gcc_portfolio_rank.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, and there are no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that it searches/ranks capabilities based on the listed dimensions.
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.