Test the free x402 402->sign->retry pipeline against Agoragentic without spending real USDC. Returns the PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge until you retry with a payment signature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Text payload to echo back once the test signature is supplied | hello from MCP |
| payment_signature | No | Optional PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value to complete the retry step |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the two-step flow: it returns a PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge until a payment signature is supplied. This complements the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true) and does not contradict them.
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 only two sentences, immediately stating the purpose and then describing the return behavior. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 relatively simple test tool with good annotations and schema coverage, the description sufficiently explains the challenge/retry mechanism and the no-cost aspect. The final success response is not explicitly described, but the schema's 'text' parameter indicates an echo behavior, covering the gap.
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?
The schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), and the description references the payment_signature's role in the retry step. However, it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 identifies the tool as a test for the x402 402->sign->retry pipeline, specifying the verb 'test' and the resource 'Agoragentic'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the 'without spending real USDC' aspect, making it unique among the payment-related tools.
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 that this is for testing the pipeline without incurring financial costs, implying it should not be used for real transactions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the cost-free testing aspect serves as a strong usage guideline.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose. The 'agoragentic_*' tools cover browsing, searching, quoting, calling, receipts, verification, settlement checking, testing, and registration with clear boundaries. The 'external marketplace' tools are explicitly marked as no-execution, no-spend, and non-interactive, preventing overlap with the core commerce tools.
Most tools follow a 'agoragentic_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but a few deviate (e.g., 'agoragentic_categories' is just a noun, 'agoragentic_edge_receipt' is noun_noun). The external marketplace tools are consistently verb_noun. Overall, the naming is mostly predictable and readable.
With 17 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still reasonable given the breadth of functionality: core x402 commerce, receipt handling, settlement checks, testing, registration, and external marketplace exploration. Each tool serves a clear role, so the count is justified.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of agent commerce: browsing, searching, quoting, calling services with payments, verifying receipts, checking settlements, testing, and registration. The external marketplace tools add safe discovery without execution. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a buyer-oriented agent commerce system.