Create a live x402 challenge for one public HTTPS source snapshot. This does not move funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| query | No | ||
| max_characters | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the most important side-effect boundary: the operation does not move funds, and it describes the output as a 'live' x402 challenge. However, it does not explain other behavioral aspects such as whether the source URL is contacted, challenge lifetime, rate limits, or any server-side state changes beyond challenge creation.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose statement comes first, and the critical no-funds-movement clarification follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Even though an output schema exists and only one parameter is required, the combination of 0% schema coverage and minimal description leaves important gaps. The agent cannot reliably know what query and max_characters control, nor when to choose this tool over the closely related payment siblings. The description provides too little context for confident invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level information. The agent is left to infer the meaning of url, query, and max_characters from names and defaults alone. Because coverage is low, the description was obligated to compensate but did not.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a live x402 challenge for one public HTTPS source snapshot.' It also clarifies a critical distinguishing trait: 'This does not move funds.' However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate among sibling payment tools like submit_x402_payment or get_payment_preflight_payment, relying on the no-funds-movement statement to imply the boundary.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies that it creates a challenge and does not move funds, leaving an agent to infer that this is not the submission or preflight tool. No sibling tool is mentioned, and no conditions or exclusions are provided.
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.
The four get_*_ayment tools all create live x402 challenges and differ only by product, while get_quote and get_example_payment both provide example input data — creating real selection ambiguity. Descriptions do clarify the product and side-effect differences, but an agent must read carefully to avoid picking the wrong one.
All tools use lowercase snake_case with a verb prefix, and the get_X_payment pattern for challenge creation is consistent. However, 'get' is overloaded to cover both free reads that create no side effects and challenge creation calls, and get_payment_preflight_payment has a redundant 'ayment' that muddies the naming pattern.
Eight tools map cleanly to the paid-evidence workflow: status check, quote, four product-specific challenge creators, payment submission, and a capability-request escape hatch. Each tool earns its place, and the count is well-scoped for a niche paid API.
The core quote→challenge→submit→result flow is covered, and request_capability is a good gap-filler for missing products. Minor gaps remain: there is no explicit result-retrieval tool beyond request_id replay, and product discovery is implicit through get_quote and get_service_status rather than a dedicated list endpoint.
