PAID $0.01. The HOT band (health factor 1.00–1.08), Morpho-first — the exact names the fleet's race bots recheck every ~2s. The tightest, most actionable slice.
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a $0.01 paid gate and hints at output ('exact names'), but it does not explain the call flow, whether the operation is read-only, what happens on payment failure, or what the response contains beyond names. The payment-requirements flow is only visible inside the parameter description, not the tool description.
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 short and front-loads the cost, but it reads as cryptic fragments joined by em dashes rather than clear sentences. The phrase 'The tightest, most actionable slice' is marketing-like and does not add operational clarity. It is concise but not well-structured for an agent that needs unambiguous guidance.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return shape and invocation behavior more fully. It gives domain context and implies names as output, but it does not state the response structure, the payment requirement workflow, or how the route/price is determined. An agent would still need to inspect the parameter description and infer much of the behavior.
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% for the single parameter, and the parameter description already explains the x402Payment header and the omit-to-get-requirements flow. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 identifies a specific domain slice — the HOT band with health factor 1.00–1.08, Morpho-first — and implies the tool returns names, but it never states an action verb like 'list' or 'fetch'. The phrase 'the exact names the fleet's race bots recheck every ~2s' suggests a list output, yet the purpose remains associative and jargon-heavy rather than plainly stated.
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 implies when this tool is relevant: for the tightest, most actionable health-factor band that bots recheck frequently. It does not explicitly contrast this with siblings like farm_liquidations, farm_targets, or farm_distress, nor does it state when not to use it. Context is present but the selection guidance is only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.