Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

reservation_record_check

[PAID $0.005 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Compare up to 100 supplied reservation confirmations with 1000 supplied registry rows, capped at 10000 resource comparisons. Exact reservation/resource IDs and UTC intervals; expose missing/ambiguous records, held/cancelled status and overlapping confirmed records. No live availability query, fraud finding, hold, cancellation or booking. 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": {
      "registry_observed_at": "<registry_observed_at>",
      "confirmations": "<confirmations>",
      "registry": "<registry>"
    },
    "name": "reservation_record_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
registryYes
confirmationsYes
registry_observed_atYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full load admirably: it discloses the payment model and price ($0.005 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453), the accepted signature scheme (EOA EIP-712 only; ERC-1271/6492 unsupported), hard limits (100 confirmations, 1000 registry rows, 10000 comparisons, 64 KiB MCP body), and the key caveat that input facts are not authenticated. It also names what the result surfaces (missing/ambiguous records, held/cancelled status, overlapping confirmed records).

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?

Information is front-loaded with price and action first, then limits, exclusions, and payment mechanics, and nearly every clause adds distinct value. It is dense as a single block rather than broken into scannable segments, but there is little dead weight.

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 3-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool this covers the essentials an agent needs to call it correctly: cost, limits, input shape, exclusions, and what it returns. The main residual gaps are the meaning of `registry_observed_at` and the exact shape of the comparison result, 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does so partially: it explains that `confirmations` holds up to 100 confirmations and `registry` up to 1000 rows, that matching is on exact reservation/resource IDs and UTC intervals, and that status values include held/cancelled. However, `registry_observed_at` is never explained (presumably the freshness anchor for the registry snapshot), leaving the most semantically ambiguous required field to inference.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and both operands: 'Compare up to 100 supplied reservation confirmations with 1000 supplied registry rows.' An agent immediately knows this is a set-comparison tool over caller-supplied reservation data, not a lookup service, and can distinguish it from availability or booking siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly carves out the negative space — 'No live availability query, fraud finding, hold, cancellation or booking' — which tells the agent when NOT to reach for it versus live-availability or booking tools. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling, so it falls just under a 5.

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