billing
x402 prices and network.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
meta-agent-tools
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states a noun phrase. It does not say whether this is read-only, whether it returns current prices, or what side effects or prerequisites exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four words make the description concise, but they form a sentence fragment and do not provide enough structure for a tool definition. The brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient organization.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters or output schema, so invocation is simple, but an agent still lacks enough context to know what response to expect or how this differs from sibling tools. 'x402 prices and network' is too ambiguous to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to document beyond what the schema already shows. The empty schema fully covers the parameter surface.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a subject area ('x402 prices and network') but contains no verb or complete statement of what the tool does. It is not a tautology of the name 'billing', but it is vague because 'x402' and 'network' are unexplained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool over siblings such as api_index or get_listing, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The fragment implies a billing/pricing lookup but gives no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, and descriptions are clear enough to avoid major confusion. The main overlap is between list_listings and list_mcp_servers as registry views, though their scope differs.
Naming Consistency3/5
The set mixes verb_noun names like create_listing and list_comments with noun-style names like api_index, billing, contact, and health. This is readable but not a consistent naming convention across the whole server.
Tool Count5/5
Twelve tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count for a registry-and-commerce server. Each tool has a distinct role, with no obvious bloat or redundancy.
Completeness3/5
Discovery, creation, liking, and commenting are covered, but there are no update or delete operations for listings, nor any comment management beyond listing comments. These are notable lifecycle gaps for a registry-style tool.