OMENZ agent tools

vendor_check

Vendor Due-Diligence Pack: before your agent depends on an unknown paid API: reliability score + the vendor domain's health (live/parked/moved) + its terms/pricing page digest (material lines) + flags. Never pays. By OMENZ. (MCP calls run in AYNE, the free playzone; production: GET https://www.omenz.org/api/tollbooth/v1/vendor-check, $0.01 via x402.)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "vendor_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`method`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description still carries useful behavioral context: 'Never pays' tells the agent no charge is incurred, and it discloses the sandbox vs. production endpoint plus the $0.01 x402 cost. However, it omits whether the call is read-only, whether it makes outbound requests to the vendor domain, rate limits, and caching, which matter for a tool that passively probes third-party infrastructure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The output inventory is front-loaded and dense, which is good, but the sentence is a run-on packed with branding ('By OMENZ', 'AYNE, the free playzone') and a production endpoint/cost aside that compete with the core explanation for attention.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description does a reasonable job of describing what is returned, so an agent knows the shape of the result. But the unexplained 'method' parameter and the missing operational details of probing a live vendor domain leave real gaps for a two-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description must supply meaning — and it supplies none. Neither 'url' (required) nor the optional 'method' is mentioned; an agent gets no hint about URL format, whether a bare domain is accepted, or what 'method' controls.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb-like operation (due-diligence check on a vendor) and enumerates exactly what comes back: reliability score, domain health (live/parked/moved), terms/pricing digest, and flags. It carves out a scope ('unknown paid API') that separates it from generic site or event checks, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear trigger condition — run it before your agent depends on an unknown paid API. It does not state when to skip it or name an alternative (e.g. site_check) that covers overlapping ground, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OMENZ agent tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?