Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

by com.novarithm.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

test_seo

[PAID $5 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Signed passive SEO proof: SEO module scores (technical, content, links, local, AI visibility), title/meta lengths, canonical, single h1, lang, JSON-LD, indexable, sitemap. ok/ko/not_measured + EIP-712 attestation.

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": "test_seo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic website URL or domain, e.g. https://www.example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: it is paid at $5 USDC per call via x402 on eip155:8453, is passive, and returns EIP-712 attestation. It does not clarify failure charging, payment flow details, or read-only side effects beyond 'passive', but the key cost and signing behavior are transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the payment requirement and then packs the proof contents and attestation into a compact statement.

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 SEO proof tool with no output schema, the description lists the checked scores and fields plus cost and attestation. It is largely complete, though sibling differentiation and payment/error behavior would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines that it accepts a public website URL or domain. The description does not add URL format, validation, or scope details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states that this returns a signed passive SEO proof with module scores and technical SEO checks. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings via 'signed', 'passive', and 'EIP-712 attestation', but does not explicitly compare itself to other SEO audit tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Only the payment model is stated. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many SEO-related siblings such as seo_full_audit, seo_technical_audit, or site_audit_quick, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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