Skip to main content
Glama

Genexxis paid agent tools (x402)

hn_user

Hacker News user profile: karma, account creation date and age, about text (HTML stripped), number of submissions and the 10 most recent submission ids. Price: $0.003 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "hn_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesHacker News username (case-sensitive)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, yet the description discloses the two things an agent most needs: the exact payload shape (including that about text is HTML-stripped) and the commercial terms — $0.003 USDC per call paid via x402 on Base. It does not say how a nonexistent or deleted user is handled, which is the main remaining behavioral gap for a paid call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload, followed by the cost. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read with no output schema, the description effectively stands in for the return contract and adds pricing, which is essential before spending money. It falls short only on error/empty-result behavior and whether a call is charged when the user is not found.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, including the case-sensitive note, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format or lookup nuance beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource (a Hacker News user profile) and enumerates exactly what the response contains: karma, creation date/age, about text, submission count, and 10 most recent submission ids. This clearly separates it from hn_item (single item) and hn_hackernews (feed listing) without the agent needing to inspect the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a lookup for one named user, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over hn_hackernews or hn_item, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent's inference.

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.

Resources