Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BuiltWith

by io.github.builtwith
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

x402-credit-purchase

Destructive

Purchase a batch of at least 2,000 non-expiring BuiltWith API credits with one x402 payment. Returns a reusable secret credit key; provide an existing key to top it up.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "credits": "<credits>",
      "payer": "<payer>"
    },
    "name": "x402-credit-purchase"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payerYesBase wallet address that will sign the x402 payment
creditsYes
creditKeyNoReusable prepaid key returned by x402-credit-purchase

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag a write operation that is destructive and open-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the purchase spends a real x402 payment, credits never expire, and a reusable secret key is returned rather than a per-request token. It stops short of the irreversibility/failure semantics an agent would want before committing funds.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the primary action plus its key constraint (minimum batch, non-expiring) is front-loaded before the return-value and top-up detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return (a reusable secret credit key) and the top-up path, which covers most of what an agent needs for a 3-parameter payment tool. What is missing is cost/pricing and what happens if payment succeeds but the key is not returned.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 67% schema coverage the schema already explains payer and creditKey, and the description largely restates those. Its one real contribution is clarifying that creditKey exists to top up an existing key rather than to identify an account, and it leaves 'credits' meaning to the schema's minimum constraint. Baseline 3 fits.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Purchase a batch of ... BuiltWith API credits'), plus scope details (minimum 2,000, non-expiring, single x402 payment) that make the operation unmistakable. It does not name or contrast any sibling such as x402-credit-balance, so the differentiation stop is just 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the second sentence tells you that supplying an existing creditKey turns the call into a top-up, which is a real conditional hint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites spelled out (e.g. payer must hold funds on Base), and no reference to alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All BuiltWith toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources