pulsefeed_productsList PulseFeed's products. All data endpoints are FREE since 2026-09-02 (trust checks, track records, datasets, drift history); only on-chain token signals are x402 pay-per-call. Formerly: deep trust check, endpoint track record, bulk trust dataset, and the cross-domain Data API. Includes the client-side spend-cap gotcha for x402-fetch.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context: pricing changed on 2026-09-02, only on-chain signals are pay-per-call, and there is a client-side spend-cap gotcha to be aware of. The gotcha mention is vague but still signals an important caveat.
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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the pricing/historical-name context is packed efficiently. The final phrase about the client-side spend-cap gotcha is cryptic and does not explain what the gotcha is, which slightly reduces clarity without making the description bloated.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only product-listing tool, the description gives enough context: what is listed, current pricing model, legacy names, and a warning. It does not describe the exact return shape, but no output schema exists and the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter meaning. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List PulseFeed's products.' It clearly identifies the tool as a catalog/pricing reference, and the pricing note distinguishes it from the x402 sibling endpoints. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for comparison, so it stops short of a 5.
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 implies the tool should be used to learn which PulseFeed products are free versus pay-per-call, and it mentions 'Formerly' names that agents may encounter. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over the sibling x402 tools, nor does it give exclusions.
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.