Audit a signed or explicitly declared selected offer against alternatives and quantify affordable counterfactual savings. $0.01/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alternatives | Yes | ||
| selected_offer | Yes | ||
| max_price_atomic | No | ||
| signature_secret | No | ||
| signed_selected_offer | No | ||
| selected_offer_declared | No |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the cost ($0.01/call) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. The term 'audit' implies analysis, but the agent cannot infer if it mutates state or requires specific permissions.
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 that captures the core purpose and pricing. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words.
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?
Given 6 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the audit returns, how to specify alternatives, or any constraints. The agent would struggle to use it correctly without additional information.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at two modes ('signed or explicitly declared') which correspond to signed_selected_offer and selected_offer_declared, but does not explain their relationship or the role of max_price_atomic or signature_secret. The agent cannot infer how to construct the required inputs.
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: auditing a selected offer against alternatives and quantifying savings. It specifies the two modes ('signed or explicitly declared') and mentions pricing, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like agent_readiness_audit.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or reference sibling tools. The agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate versus other audit or marketplace tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.