Reputation of an x402 payment recipient: weekly revenue, unique buyers, average ticket, what they sell, and our organic-vs-farm verdict. Few unique buyers against sizeable revenue is the signature of volume washing — six addresses with exactly 5 buyers each accounted for 45% of the top-100 revenue in our last measurement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description implies a read-only lookup of reputation data, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects. The absence of any warning about modifications or sensitive data suggests it is safe, but this is inferred rather than declared.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively brief and to the point, covering the main purpose and a relevant insight about volume washing. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the additional context about specific addresses could be seen as slightly verbose. Overall, it is well-structured and efficiently communicates the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks an output schema and does not mention expected return format or any prerequisites. It gives a high-level overview but omits details about how the reputation is calculated or what exactly the verdict means. While not critical for basic use, the absence of output structure and additional context leaves gaps for an agent expecting precise data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The parameters 'address' and 'agent_id' are only listed in the schema without any descriptions. The tool description mentions 'x402 payment recipient', which implies 'address' is the recipient's wallet, but 'agent_id' remains unexplained. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides reputation information for an x402 payment recipient, listing specific data points like weekly revenue, unique buyers, average ticket, and a verdict. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on reputation metrics rather than balances or domain checks, though it does not explicitly name a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a heuristic for detecting volume washing, but this is more informative than actionable. No direct comparison to sibling tools or clear conditions for selection are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct, but fetch_ru and fetch_web overlap as the former is a specialization of the latter; descriptions clarify the difference, so agents should select correctly. Other tools (check_domain vs register_ru_domain, x402_*) have clear boundaries.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_balance, fetch_web, topup_balance), but the x402_* group uses a domain prefix rather than a verb. This is consistent within its subgroup but deviates from the overall pattern.
12 tools cover a broad but well-scoped set of capabilities (fetching, RU-specific access, domains, code execution, balance, x402 services). Each tool has a distinct role and the count is within the ideal range.
The tool surface covers the main workflows: fetching with country/JS options, RU proxy/domain services, balance management, code execution, and x402 discovery/verification. Minor gaps like domain deletion or a generic service list are not critical for the stated purpose.