Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

api_contract_diff

[PAID $0.005 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Diff two supplied OpenAPI 3.0.x/3.1.x documents: operations, parameters, response codes and a listed inline JSON-schema subset. At most 1000 operations/document, 12 schema levels and 4000 compared schema nodes. Unresolved references and excluded semantics remain explicit; no compatibility certification or deployed API verification. EOA EIP-712 payments only; ERC-1271/6492 unsupported. MCP body max 64 KiB. Experimental price; input facts are not authenticated.

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": {
      "before": "<before>",
      "after": "<after>"
    },
    "name": "api_contract_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterYes
beforeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: price and x402/eip155 payment mechanism, EOA EIP-712 only with ERC-1271/6492 unsupported, 64 KiB body cap, operation/node/level limits, and honest caveats (unresolved refs and excluded semantics stay explicit, no compatibility certification, no deployed API verification, input facts unauthenticated). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before calling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It is a dense, front-loaded block with practically no filler; the payment tag leads, then purpose, then limits and caveats. It borders on run-on density, but every clause conveys a distinct constraint or caveat.

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 complex comparison tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, limits, payment and semantic caveats well. The notable omission is any indication of the result shape (how the diff is reported), which an agent must infer.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the two nested object parameters (before/after, each with openapi and paths) are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by constraining accepted documents to OpenAPI 3.0.x/3.1.x with operation and schema-depth limits, but it never explains the parameter structure or that each is a full document object, leaving a real gap.

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 states a specific verb (diff) and resource (two supplied OpenAPI 3.0.x/3.1.x documents) and enumerates what is compared: operations, parameters, response codes and an inline JSON-schema subset. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed; an agent can tell immediately what this does.

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?

It's clear what the tool is for, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for it versus an adjacent tool like migration_compare, nor any prerequisites beyond the input format. Usage is implied rather than guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources