Retrieve Scout Packs for sale with sizes, prices, and a redacted sample for free, so AI agents can evaluate leads and x402 payment terms without moving funds.
List Scout Packs for sale: sizes, prices, and a redacted sample. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the sample is redacted and the call is free, which is real behavioral context for a no-param read tool, but it says nothing about pagination, auth, or result volume.
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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a short 'Free.' fragment that does earn its place as a cost signal, though the fragment style is slightly clipped.
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 zero-parameter read-only listing with an output schema that carries return values, the description covers what the agent needs to select and call it; only sibling routing and pagination behavior are absent.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no schema-level parameter meaning the description could be expected to supplement.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Scout Packs for sale') plus the fields returned (sizes, prices, redacted sample). It is clearly distinguishable from buy_pack as a browse rather than purchase operation, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: the 'Free' note signals zero-cost browsing that logically precedes buy_pack, but the description never states when to use this versus buy_pack or lookup_lead, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.