Three well-named tools with complete input schemas and clear descriptions. backup_create and backup_restore have strong domain-specific descriptions mentioning pricing tiers and integrity verification. However, parameter descriptions are sparse, many lack detail on format, constraints, or valid ranges. The 'body' parameter in backup_create has no type constraint (accepts string, JSON, or base64 object), which could confuse LLMs. Output schemas are not documented in the tool definitions. Error handling is mentioned in descriptions but not formalized in the tool interface. Overall solid foundation but missing parameter-level rigor expected of production tools.

• Add explicit type and oneOf constraint to 'body' parameter: {oneOf: [{type: 'string'}, {type: 'object'}, {type: 'object', properties: {base64: {type: 'string'}}}]}
• Document output schema for each tool. E.g., backup_create returns {id: string, sha256: string, size_bytes: integer, created_at: integer}
• Add minimum/maximum constraints to numeric parameters: limit (1-500), offset (0+), since/until (epoch seconds, reasonable bounds)
• Expand parameter descriptions with format hints: agent_did (stable identifier format), content_type (MIME type, default application/octet-stream), metadata (arbitrary JSON object)
• Add error response guidance: 'If payment verification fails, error includes reason (invalid_tx_hash, underpaid, etc.) and next steps. If SHA-256 mismatch, restore fails with digest mismatch error.'