PAID $0.02. Insolvency / bad-debt early-warning: positions liquidatable but NOT being liquidated (unseized) — where value is leaking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x402Payment | No | Base64 x402 payment header (EIP-3009 exact-evm) for THIS route+price. Omit to receive the machine-readable payment requirements, then call again with it. |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is paid ('PAID $0.02') and that it is an early-warning/monitoring tool, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not state side effects, output shape, or whether any state changes occur beyond the payment requirement.
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 extremely short and front-loads the payment and core purpose. The standalone 'PAID $0.02.' is slightly cryptic, but it does not waste words and the key distinction is delivered in one sentence.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the domain and payment requirement but does not explain what the returned result looks like or how an agent should consume it. This is a meaningful gap since the output schema is 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the x402Payment parameter is already fully documented. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the payment amount, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific function: bad-debt/insolvency early-warning for positions that are liquidatable but unseized. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling farm_liquidations by explicitly saying 'NOT being liquidated', making the tool's scope unambiguous.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you care about positions where value is leaking and liquidation has not yet happened. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the boundary against farm_liquidations is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.