Preview a redacted external marketplace handoff receipt without writing a receipt, opening an external service, or performing execution/payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_summary | No | Human-readable handoff intent summary. | |
| selected_handoff_url | No | Public handoff URL to redact and preview. | |
| external_supply_candidate_id | No | External supply candidate id. |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context about the exact side effects that are avoided (writing a receipt, opening external service, execution/payment), which enriches behavioral understanding beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and key constraints without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
The description covers the core functionality and safety profile, which is sufficient for a preview tool with strong annotations. However, since there is no output schema, it would be helpful to clarify what the preview returns (e.g., redacted receipt content). Also, the combination of parameters (all optional) is not clarified, leaving some ambiguity about invocation requirements.
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 describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters; it only broadly refers to the handoff receipt. No parameter-specific details are provided in the description.
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 ('preview') and resource ('redacted external marketplace handoff receipt'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating what it does not do (writing a receipt, opening an external service, performing execution/payment). This goes beyond a generic statement and provides clear scope.
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 explicit when-not context by listing side effects it avoids, which helps the agent understand when to use this preview tool versus alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or provide a direct 'use this instead of X' comparison, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.