PAID $0.02. Positions liquidatable RIGHT NOW (health factor ≤ 1) across the fleet's chains/venues — the actionable-this-block set.
| 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 full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the payment requirement ('PAID $0.02'), the selection criterion ('health factor ≤ 1'), and the time-sensitivity of the result ('actionable-this-block set'). It stops short of describing the response format, but the disclosed traits are substantive.
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 most decision-relevant fact ('PAID $0.02'). Every fragment earns its place and there is no fluff, though the telegraphic style is denser than necessary.
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 single-parameter paid endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to select the tool but not enough to fully anticipate the response payload or the two-step payment flow without relying on the parameter description. Given the simple interface, it is adequate with clear gaps.
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, so the schema already documents the x402Payment flow thoroughly. The tool description adds only the 'PAID $0.02' context, which is useful but not additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly identifies the resource: 'Positions liquidatable RIGHT NOW' with a precise definition ('health factor ≤ 1') and scope ('across the fleet's chains/venues'). It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like farm_liquidations, but the meaning is 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 phrase 'RIGHT NOW' and 'actionable-this-block set' imply this tool is for immediate liquidation opportunities, and 'PAID $0.02' signals a cost condition. However, no alternatives are named, and there is no explicit when-to-use versus sibling tools such as farm_liquidations or farm_distress.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.