Instant Base + Solana wallets, free and x402-payable. US bank account after a 2-min check.
Scored across 4 tools
The four tools target distinct concerns: account creation, verification status, wallet addresses, and bank funding details. get_wallets and get_funding_details both return address/account data, but the descriptions clearly distinguish them by verification requirement, and create_account's immediate wallet return slightly overlaps with get_wallets.
All tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern: check_status, create_account, get_funding_details, get_wallets. No camelCase mixing or vague standalone verbs.
Four tools is on the lean side but each maps to a real step in the onboarding and funding flow. The scope is narrow enough that nothing obvious is missing by count alone.
The surface covers account creation, wallets, verification status, and bank details, but there is no tool to actually initiate a bank transfer or off-ramp despite the descriptions emphasizing moving balances into a bank account. No update or transaction-history operations exist either, leaving a notable lifecycle gap.
Where the person is in bank verification: awaiting_verification, in_review, approved, declined or unavailable (temporarily unavailable — tell them to contact support, do not speculate why). Call this after they open the verification link — approval usually takes about two minutes. Their wallets already work regardless of what this says.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| onboarding_token | Yes | The token returned by create_account. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description still adds real behavioral context: typical approval latency (~2 minutes), the instruction not to speculate on 'unavailable', and the fact that wallets function independently of this status. That last point is a genuinely non-obvious side effect that prevents an agent from misreading the result.
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?
Front-loads the status enumeration, which is the highest-value information, then adds timing and safety guidance. The sentence is dense with parentheticals but every clause carries meaning; minor tightening is possible.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description effectively documents the return values by enumerating all five statuses and their interpretations. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (onboarding_token) is fully documented as 'The token returned by create_account'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Where the person is in bank verification') and enumerates the exact result states with plain-language meanings. An agent can distinguish this from create_account/get_wallets/get_funding_details purely from the description, since it is the only verification-status reader.
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?
Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this after they open the verification link,' plus a handling rule for the unavailable state ('tell them to contact support, do not speculate why'). It does not name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated to verification, so there is little routing ambiguity to resolve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Sign in to Glide with a verified email and supply the Privy access token in the Authorization: Bearer header to open or reconnect your account. Returns your wallets immediately — Base and Solana, both able to receive USDC and both x402-payable — with no additional banking verification and no fee. Also returns a verification link, which is optional and only needed for bank rails (a US account, USD, EUR and other currencies); it is usually approved in about two minutes. Safe to call twice with the same email: it returns the same account rather than making a second one. Returns an onboarding_token — keep it, every later call needs it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The person's email address. Their welcome letter and bank details are sent here. | ||
| phone | No | Optional phone number in E.164 form, e.g. +14155551234. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: the Authorization: Bearer token requirement, what returns immediately (Base and Solana wallets, USDC-capable, x402-payable), that no banking verification or fee is needed, that the verification link is optional with ~2-minute approval, and the concrete idempotency semantics ('returns the same account rather than making a second one').
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the density of actionable facts is high. It is on the long side and mixes in promotional framing ('no fee', 'x402-payable'), but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.
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 output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing returns and it does: wallets, the optional verification link, and the onboarding_token required by later calls. Combined with the auth requirement and idempotency semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.
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 both parameters (email, phone) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does not add format detail for either parameter beyond the schema, though it does disclose a non-schema requirement (the Bearer header) that is not a parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: sign in with a verified email and open or reconnect a Glide account, returning wallets, a verification link, and an onboarding_token. That is far more specific than the bare name, but it never names a sibling (e.g. get_wallets or check_status) to distinguish itself from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
It gives clear conditions for use: call it to open or reconnect an account with a verified email plus a Privy Bearer token, and use the verification link only for bank rails. It also notes the call is safe to repeat with the same email. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use, so no 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The US bank account — account number and routing number — plus the USDC address on Base. This is the banking half, so it needs verification to be approved; before that it refuses. On and off ramps are free. For a wallet address that works right now, without verification, use get_wallets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| onboarding_token | Yes | The token returned by create_account. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavior beyond annotations: the tool requires verification approval before it will work, and it refuses otherwise. It also notes that on/off ramps are free. This adds meaningful context not present in the annotations.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core content. Every sentence adds value: what the tool returns, the verification requirement, the fee note, and the pointer to the alternative tool. There is no filler.
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?
Given one well-documented parameter and clear behavioral notes, the description covers what the agent needs to know. It explains the verification gate, the alternative for immediate use, and the nature of the returned data. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently indicates the return content.
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?
There is only one parameter, onboarding_token, and the schema already describes it as 'The token returned by create_account.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool's resource: the US bank account details (account/routing number) plus USDC address on Base. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_wallets by noting that get_wallets provides an immediately usable wallet address without verification. The purpose 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 description states when this tool is usable: only after verification is approved, and it refuses before that. It explicitly routes the agent to get_wallets when a wallet address that works right now without verification is needed. This is strong usage differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The person's Base and Solana wallet addresses, plus the x402 endpoint on each chain that lets any agent pay them in USDC. Works from the moment the account exists: no verification, no fee, nothing to set up. Receiving is free and unlimited; moving the balance into a US or EUR bank account is the part that needs verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| onboarding_token | Yes | The token returned by create_account. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the x402 endpoint enables anyone to pay in USDC, receiving is free and unlimited, and bank withdrawal is the only part requiring verification.
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 core resource information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following two sentences provide relevant operational context about setup, fees, and verification. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with a single well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, that no setup is required, and when the account is ready. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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%: the only parameter, onboarding_token, is already described as 'The token returned by create_account.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the resource being returned: Base and Solana wallet addresses plus x402 endpoints on each chain. The annotation title 'Get wallet addresses and x402 endpoints' supplies the explicit verb, and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like check_status or get_funding_details.
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 provides clear context about when the tool is usable: 'Works from the moment the account exists: no verification, no fee, nothing to set up.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it gives enough precondition context that an agent can decide when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_statuscreate_accountget_funding_detailsget_walletsAgents-only x402 economy on Base + Solana testnets: identity, swaps, invoicing, streaming.
72 x402 endpoints: trading, AI inference, blockchain, escrow. USDC on Base+Solana.
320 AI models + 2,720 pay-per-call APIs. x402 USDC on Base or Solana, no API key.
Payment rails for AI agents. Pay merchants in USDC on Base. Dual-protocol: x402 + OKX APP.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
