x402_data_sampleFREE sample of the PulseFeed Data API: top-10 live x402 services as FULL records (compounding payTo/price history, anomaly flags, on-chain receiver profile), top-10 MCP servers with full audit profile, and 3 live incidents.
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, ensuring the agent knows it is safe. The description adds context about the specific data returned (services, servers, incidents), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.
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 tool with no parameters and a straightforward output, the description adequately lists the contents. However, it omits the format or structure of the returned data (e.g., JSON). Given the tool's simplicity, 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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies.
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 it provides a free sample of the PulseFeed Data API, listing specific data components (top-10 x402 services with full records, top-10 MCP servers, and 3 live incidents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_ecosystem_stats or x402_leaderboard, which likely offer different aggregated or analytical data.
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 term 'FREE sample' implies it is a limited preview for initial exploration, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Most tools target distinct data or actions, but x402_working_services and x402_leaderboard both list services ranked by trust score, and x402_changes vs x402_incidents both cover ecosystem changes. Descriptions help differentiate them, so only minor confusion is possible.
Naming is mixed: some tools use a verb_noun pattern (check_x402_endpoint, mcp_check_server), while most use noun phrases (x402_incidents, pulsefeed_products). The consistent x402_/mcp_/pulsefeed_ prefixes add some structure, but the overall pattern is inconsistent.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific data/audit server. Each tool covers a distinct facet (endpoint safety, ecosystem stats, MCP audits, product listings), and none feel redundant or out of place.
The set covers endpoint checking, incident feeds, leaderboards, stats, change history, MCP security, and product info. A minor gap is the lack of a per-endpoint full historical record beyond the check verdict, but the available tools serve the core use cases well.