Paid brand naming with real .com/.app/.ai checks. $0.25 stablecoin or $1 card per call (MPP).
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools split cleanly along pipeline stages: name (naming pass), hero (headline/subheadline pass), and poll (retrieve results). The only mild overlap is that name and hero share nearly identical payment semantics, so an agent could confuse when each is needed, but their outputs are distinct.
All names are short, lowercase single tokens, which is internally consistent. However, they mix parts of speech (hero/name are nouns, poll is a verb) and none hint at the generate-vs-fetch distinction, so the pattern is readable but not descriptive.
Three tools is lean but appropriate for a narrow generate-and-poll service; each covers a distinct stage (pay/authorize, generate, retrieve). It is on the thin side for handling two generation types plus payment, but nothing is redundant.
The core lifecycle (authorize, generate name, generate hero, poll for results) is present, but there is no way to check payment/authorization status, list or manage prior jobs, or cancel a run. These gaps are workable but force agents into blind retries or re-payments.
Separate paid Hero headline + subheadline pass. Requires brand_name, audience, and brief or all five structured fields. Currently synchronous; GET is discovery only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | No | ||
| count | No | Rounded and clamped to 3–5 by the handler. | |
| problem | No | ||
| product | No | ||
| audience | Yes | ||
| benefits | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| features | No | ||
| brand_name | Yes | ||
| capabilities | No | ||
| authorization | No | Optional full MPP Authorization header: Payment <credential>. Obtain it from the endpoint's 402 challenge using an MPP wallet or Stripe Link CLI. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is paid (implying cost/auth), currently synchronous despite poll existing, and that GET is discovery only. It does not specify the payment/authorization mechanism beyond what the schema's authorization field says, nor what the sync call returns or how long it takes.
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 terse clauses with no filler, front-loaded with what the tool is. Slightly telegraphic, but every fragment carries information relevant to invocation.
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 an 11-parameter paid generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits return shape, sync latency expectations, the payment flow, and how the two input modes differ in output, leaving the agent under-informed on a costly operation.
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 only 18%, so the description should compensate, and it does state the required parameters and the anyOf input modes. But it doesn't explain count clamping, the distinction between product and brief, or the authorization parameter's real role in payment.
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 deliverable: a paid Hero headline + subheadline generation pass, distinguishing it from the poll sibling. The phrase 'Separate paid Hero' implies this is distinct from a free tier, which adds useful scope. However it doesn't fully define what the 'Hero' section is for an unfamiliar agent.
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 gives input requirements ('Requires brand_name, audience, and brief or all five structured fields') and notes GET is discovery only, which implies this is the POST/generation path. But it never says when to use this versus poll, or when-not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Paid naming pass. Without authorization returns the payment challenge. A 202 includes a poll_url (polling costs nothing extra); do not pay again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brief | Yes | ||
| product | No | ||
| customer | No | ||
| rejected | No | ||
| authorization | No | Optional full MPP Authorization header: Payment <credential>. Obtain it from the endpoint's 402 challenge using an MPP wallet or Stripe Link CLI. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the operation is paid, that missing authorization returns a payment challenge, that success is a 202 carrying a poll_url, and that polling and re-paying are unnecessary. It still omits the cost of the pass itself and what it returns beyond the poll handle.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the payment-challenge behavior, then the polling caveat. Tight, though the opening phrase is so terse it underspecifies rather than economizes.
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 five parameters, 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the naming operation and its inputs. It covers only the payment/poll plumbing and leaves the core action and four parameters unexplained.
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 only 20%, and only "authorization" is documented in the schema. The description ties authorization to the 402 challenge, which is genuinely useful, but brief, product, customer, and rejected are never explained anywhere, leaving most parameters opaque.
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?
"Paid naming pass" largely restates the tool name (name/naming) and adds only the payment qualifier. It never says what a "naming pass" produces from the brief, nor how it differs from siblings hero and poll, so an agent cannot tell what this tool actually 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 gives real procedural guidance for the payment loop (no authorization yields the challenge; a 202 gives a poll_url; don't pay twice), which implies the poll sibling follows. However, it never states when to choose this tool over hero or poll, so selection guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch the result of a naming job you already paid for. Supply poll_url or job_id. No new payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | No | ||
| poll_url | No | ||
| authorization | No | Optional full MPP Authorization header: Payment <credential>. Obtain it from the endpoint's 402 challenge using an MPP wallet or Stripe Link CLI. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait (no additional payment). For a poll tool it omits critical behavior: whether a still-running job returns a pending status, idempotency, rate limits, and auth expectations. These gaps matter for correct invocation.
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 no filler, purpose front-loaded before the parameter hint and the cost reassurance. Every sentence carries information.
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 and no annotations, the description should describe the return shape (result vs. pending) to be complete. It covers input selection and cost but leaves the polling semantics and response form undefined.
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?
With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates partially by stating 'poll_url or job_id' as alternatives, reinforcing the anyOf requirement. It gives no format guidance for poll_url/job_id, and the authorization parameter is documented only in the schema.
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?
Names a specific verb (fetch) and resource (result of a naming job) with a clear scope qualifier ('already paid for'). It is unambiguous what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools hero/name.
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 new payment' and 'you already paid for' imply this is the follow-up to a job creation step, giving implied usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.
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.
heronamepollBrand-name intelligence across 5 dimensions including AI findability. Pay-per-call via x402.
Brandable business names with live domain availability + one-click buy URLs.
Generate startup names with an available .com, checked live, then screen US and EU trademarks.
AI-powered domain & business name generation with real-time availability checks.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
