Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

product_content_impact

[PAID $0.004 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Diff supplied snapshots of one declared product and trace changes through supplied content-to-field dependencies. Up to 1000 fields/snapshot, 1000 content records and 10000 dependency references (100/content). Missing edges stay unknown; map completeness and external content truth are not established. No content rewrite or publication. 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>",
      "contents": "<contents>"
    },
    "name": "product_content_impact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterYes
beforeYes
contentsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 unusually well: price and payment scheme (x402, eip155:8453), hard size limits (1000 fields/snapshot, 1000 content records, 10000 dependency references, 64 KiB body), the crucial caveat that missing edges stay unknown and map completeness is not established, EOA EIP-712 only with ERC-1271/6492 unsupported, and that input facts are unauthenticated. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and none are repeated from structured fields.

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?

Dense single paragraph with the purpose front-loaded and caveats/payment constraints following; nearly every clause (limits, unknown-edge disclaimer, payment scheme) carries actionable information. Slightly overpacked with semicolon-separated clauses, but no filler.

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 paid, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is thorough on constraints and caveats. The main gap is that it says nothing about the shape of the returned impact/diff result, which with no output schema is left entirely to inference.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping the limits onto the structure (1000 fields/snapshot, 1000 contents, 100 references/content bracket the before/after and contents parameters). However, it never explains that before/after product_id must identify the same declared product, nor what the undocumented `reference` field on each content record means.

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+resource: diffing supplied before/after snapshots of one product and tracing field changes through content-to-field dependencies. The 'one declared product' scoping and dependency-tracing framing distinguish it from generic diff siblings like api_contract_diff or declared_ingredient_diff, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implied by the input shape (supply two snapshots plus content dependencies), and 'No content rewrite or publication' sets a scope boundary. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or mention of the sibling diff tools that occupy adjacent space.

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