agent_distribution_packPaid $5 USDC seller-side agent distribution pack for API/MCP discoverability: live discovery audit, ready-to-commit agent-readable artifacts, and a prioritized API/MCP distribution sequence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| origin | Yes | ||
| mcpName | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| openapiUrl | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| mcpEndpoint | No | ||
| providerName | Yes | ||
| repositoryUrl | No | ||
| primaryEndpoint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions a payment of $5 USDC, implying a state-changing operation, which contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation that indicates no side effects. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not disclose any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already cover.
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 with no redundant words, front-loading the key fact (paid pack for discoverability) and listing deliverables concisely. It is appropriately sized for the information given.
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 parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It lacks essential details such as payment mechanism, expected input formats, and what the output will be, making it difficult for an agent to call correctly.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of any of the 10 parameters. An agent has no way to know what values to provide for fields like origin, mcpName, or openapiUrl, or how they relate to the distribution pack.
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 tool's purpose: a paid distribution pack for API/MCP discoverability, listing three specific deliverables (audit, artifacts, distribution sequence). It distinguishes itself by being seller-side and paid, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose it over similar tools like provider_bootstrap or agent_readiness.
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.