List platform endpoints owned by the authenticated wallet or linked dashboard user that can be bound to ERC-8004 agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listedOnly | No | Return only active/listed endpoints | |
| sessionToken | Yes | Wallet session token returned by verify_agent_wallet_challenge |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about ownership and the bindability filter, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or describe response/pagination behavior. For a list operation, the read-only nature is implied but not stated, leaving a minor gap.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and immediately specifies the resource and scope. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundant or filler content.
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 simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides the essential context: what is listed, ownership scope, and the bindability criterion. It lacks a description of the return format, but that is not critical for a list tool and can be inferred. The description is adequate for an agent to decide whether to use it.
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 100%, with both parameters ('listedOnly' and 'sessionToken') having descriptions. The tool's description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the verb 'List', the resource 'platform endpoints', and the specific scope ('owned by the authenticated wallet or linked dashboard user that can be bound to ERC-8004 agents'). This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like 'list_my_endpoints' by adding the bindability filter, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when needing endpoints that can be bound to ERC-8004 agents, owned by the authenticated user. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the purpose itself implies the distinction from sibling tools.
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.
Most tools pair a clear verb with a distinct resource noun, so endpoints, agents, datasets, campaigns, products, and vault operations are generally easy to separate. The main risk is the repeated request_*_payment / *_with_payment pairs and the two create_*_with_payment tools, which are only distinguishable by reading descriptions carefully.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, such as list_my_endpoints, update_campaign, and finalize_agent_registration, and the payment/request pairs are consistently named. The vault_* tools use a namespace prefix rather than verb-first names, and vault_how_to_backup breaks the action-oriented convention, so it is not perfectly uniform.
48 tools is a very large MCP surface, well beyond the 25-tool threshold where selection becomes a serious burden. Even though the server spans multiple domains, the count feels excessive for a single agent-facing tool set and should likely be split by domain.
The core endpoint, agent, marketplace, and payment flows are well covered, including creation, updates, stats, and two-phase x402 purchases. However, there is no create_product or delete_product, campaigns lack delete, and there is no way to list previously purchased datasets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.