Return DDG's x402scan registration status, resource URLs, and runtime probe guardrails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states what the tool returns but does not mention side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, or that it is a read-only query. The name implies status, but explicit safety guarantees are missing.
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?
A single sentence of 12 words efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no redundant information.
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?
Given zero parameters and an existing output schema (not shown), the description adequately lists the three categories of returned data. It could be slightly more descriptive about the nature of 'runtime probe guardrails,' but overall sufficient for a simple status tool.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to document. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 the tool returns 'DDG's x402scan registration status, resource URLs, and runtime probe guardrails.' The verb 'Return' identifies it as a retrieval operation, and the specific resource 'x402scan' distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddg_x402_bazaar_readiness.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other status-related sibling tools (e.g., ddg_agent_status, ddg_order_status). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, ranging from status checks to order management to payment processing. Despite the large number, descriptions make them easy to differentiate, with no obvious overlap.
All tools share the 'ddg_' prefix, but naming patterns vary: some use verb_noun (e.g., ddg_list_models) while others use noun_noun (e.g., ddg_agent_status). This mix reduces consistency, though readability remains acceptable.
With 25 tools, the count is at the high end but scales to cover diverse aspects of payable services (status, orders, payments, models, x402). Minor consolidation could be possible, but most tools earn their place.
The tool surface covers core workflows like order lifecycle, payment, and service discovery. Minor gaps (e.g., no cancellation or refund tools) exist but do not severely hinder typical agent interactions.
