providers[$0.005 USD per call] List registered model providers in the Sovereign Router pool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment | No | Optional x402 payment proof (EIP-3009 signed authorization). Call once without it to receive the payment requirements, then retry with the proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the cost per call ($0.005 USD) and implicitly references the payment proof requirement via the parameter. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint annotations. The two-step payment flow is disclosed in the schema, and the description's cost note is a valuable behavioral disclosure.
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, concise sentence with the cost noted in brackets, front-loading key information. It contains no filler and every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete. It states the purpose and cost, and the schema covers the payment parameter. However, it does not describe the output structure (e.g., what fields are returned for each provider), and since there is no output schema, this information is absent. Nevertheless, given the tool's simplicity, the gap is minor.
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 description for the 'payment' parameter is 100% complete, providing the full semantics of the optional x402 payment proof. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states. With high schema coverage, a 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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'registered model providers in the Sovereign Router pool', making its purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'route' or 'score', which imply different operations. The title reinforces the purpose with 'Sovereign Router Model Provider List'.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it or what distinguishes it from similar listing tools (e.g., gentech_list_services). The agent must infer usage context from the name and description.
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.