t54_agent_commerce_dataVerifiable swarm proof + x402 commerce bundle (premium)
HTTP GET /x402/v1/agent-commerce-data (operationId agentCommerceData). Paid routes may return HTTP 402 until the x402 broker settles on the configured rail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | Payload size — standard (smaller bundle) or full (more evidence rows). | standard |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "_dyn_agentCommerceDataOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullInput schema / properties / depth / descriptionPrevious value: -"Query parameter `depth` for operation `agentCommerceData` (GET /x402/v1/agent-commerce-data). allowed values: standard, full; default: 'standard'."New value: +"Payload size — standard (smaller bundle) or full (more evidence rows)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the HTTP 402 behavior for unpaid routes. However, it does not clarify why readOnlyHint is false, what side effects may occur, or what happens after payment settles. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness.
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 but redundant, repeating the title verbatim. The endpoint and operationId are useful for technical reference but not essential for an AI agent's selection. It could be more streamlined.
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 the premium/payment aspect and the existence of sibling t54_x402_request, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship between the tools, what to do upon receiving a 402 response, or what the returned bundle contains. Without an output schema, the description should compensate but does not.
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 depth parameter is fully described (enum, default, and description). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as how to choose between standard and full payloads.
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 the resource as a 'verifiable swarm proof + x402 commerce bundle' and mentions HTTP GET, but lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'fetches'. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling t54_x402_request, which likely handles the payment flow.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as t54_x402_request, nor any prerequisites like payment. The 402 note hints at a payment dependency but does not explain how to use the tool in that flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.