Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

monitor_subscribe_30d

[PAID $0.15 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Subscribe one agent to monitoring for thirty days: thirty daily deterministic re-checks with history and regression alerts. The cheapest per-check horizon; for an operator running several agents or an index that must stay discoverable.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "monitor_subscribe_30d"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic origin of the agent to monitor.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a fair job: price ($0.15 USDC), payment protocol (x402), chain (eip155:8453), duration, and what the subscription produces. It leaves real gaps: whether the charge is per-call or recurring over the 30 days, what happens when the same url is already subscribed, and how alerts/history are delivered (no output schema exists to cover this).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the pricing/protocol tag then the capability, with no filler. The bracketed payment prefix is dense but earns its place for a paid tool.

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 one-parameter paid subscription tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, protocol, duration, deliverable, and audience. The main omissions are billing cadence (one-off vs recurring) and return behavior, which matter for a paid action but do not block a correct call.

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 100% and the single url parameter is documented as 'Public origin of the agent to monitor.' The description adds only the constraint that one subscription covers one agent, which is mildly useful but not enough to exceed the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Subscribe one agent to monitoring for thirty days') and spells out the deliverable: thirty daily deterministic re-checks with history and regression alerts. It implicitly separates itself from monitor_subscribe_1d and monitor_subscribe_7d via duration and the 'cheapest per-check horizon' claim, though it never names those siblings outright.

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?

Offers a target user ('an operator running several agents or an index that must stay discoverable'), which implies when this horizon fits, but gives no explicit when-not condition or pointer to the 1d/7d alternatives. An agent must infer that short-lived checks belong to the sibling tools.

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