All CDP Bazaar listings of one host: endpoint count, summed 30-day payers and calls, estimated 30-day revenue, top 20 endpoints with price and payers, distinct payTo addresses, and which x402 discovery docs the origin serves. Price: $0.005 USDC per call, paid with x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Domain of the x402 seller, e.g. api.example.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the paid x402 requirement, cost, and network, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any rate-limit/error behavior.
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 front-loaded with the resource scope and then enumerates return fields, which is useful because no output schema exists. It is efficient, though the first sentence is a long run-on list.
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 helpfully lists the returned metrics and discovery-doc coverage, and it discloses the payment model. It still omits explicit read-only/no-side-effects language, but for a one-parameter read tool it is largely complete.
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 host parameter is already documented with an example. The description reinforces 'one host' but adds no syntax or format 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 states the resource precisely ('All CDP Bazaar listings of one host') and enumerates the returned metrics, so an agent knows this is an origin-level aggregation. It does not name the sibling x402check_check or explicitly contrast the two, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; it only describes output fields and price. An agent must infer that this is for host-level summaries rather than the per-listing check sibling, with no explicit alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.