Discover third-party x402-paid resources published in Coinbase CDP's Bazaar (docs, data feeds, AI inference, etc). Read-only. Filter by free-text q and/or network (e.g. 'base').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Free-text filter matched against the resource JSON (name/description/url) | |
| limit | No | Max rows returned (default 25, max 100) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous call | |
| network | No | Filter by network, e.g. 'base' or 'base-sepolia' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "Read-only" merely restates that. It adds no auth requirements, rate limits, result-set behavior, or pagination semantics beyond what the schema's cursor field already conveys. The parenthetical content-type list is modest added context.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the filter guidance. Slight waste in restating "Read-only" already covered by annotations, but nothing verbose or padded.
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?
With no output schema, the description should say something about the return shape (resource records with name/url/price/network) and that results are cursor-paginated. It covers inputs adequately but leaves the agent guessing about what a result row looks like and how large result sets behave.
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 100%, so q, limit, cursor, and network are already fully documented, including the default/max on limit and the cursor provenance. The description names q and network but adds no syntax, matching rules, or interaction details (e.g., whether q and network are ANDed). Baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (Discover) and a well-defined resource (third-party x402-paid resources in Coinbase CDP's Bazaar), with examples of content types that sharpen the scope. It implicitly excludes what bazaar_discover_mcp_servers covers, but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
"Filter by free-text q and/or network" gives a workable usage pattern, and "Read-only" signals a safe exploratory call. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over bazaar_discover_mcp_servers, bazaar_probe_x402, or bazaar_pay_and_call, nor any mention of what to do with results (probe then pay).
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.