Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

recalls_search

Product recall lookup (drugs/devices/food), Class I/II/III, against the official FDA openFDA enforcement reports — by product, firm or reason. Coverage US. Price: $0.01 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). Product recall lookup against the official FDA openFDA enforcement reports (Recall Enterprise System). Search drugs, devices or food recalls by product, firm or reason, filter by Class I/II/III. Returns recall number, classification, status, reason, recalling firm, dates and distribution. Coverage US. For e-commerce, supply-chain, pharmacovigilance and compliance agents.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax recalls [1-1000], e.g. 20
queryYesProduct, firm or reason, e.g. 'metformin' or 'contamination'
categoryNodrug | device | food (default drug)
classificationNoRecall class: I, II or III (optional)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses data source (FDA openFDA), geographic coverage (US), pricing ($0.01 per call via x402 payment), and return fields (recall number, classification, etc.). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it covers key behavioral aspects without contradictions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description contains redundancy (first sentence repeats later content). While informative, it could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

No output schema exists, but description lists return fields. Parameter descriptions are complete. The tool's purpose and inputs are well-covered, making it adequate for agent invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining how to search (by product, firm, reason) and filter by class. This enhances understanding beyond schema alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description explicitly states it is for product recall lookup of drugs/devices/food using FDA openFDA data, with clear differentiation from sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., crypto, legal, compliance).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Mentions specific use cases (e-commerce, supply-chain, pharmacovigilance, compliance) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. Given no similar sibling, the guidance is sufficient.

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

All x402-endpoints toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, there are clusters of similar tools (e.g., multiple token safety and pre-trade verdict tools for different chains) that could cause confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case with descriptive prefixes (e.g., agent_, crypto_, x402_). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count2/5

52 tools is excessive for a single server, covering a wide range of unrelated domains (crypto, legal, climate, transport, etc.). This overwhelms an agent and suggests a lack of focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain; it offers one-off tools across many areas but misses fundamental operations for any specific domain (e.g., no company registry for US, no order placement for crypto). Significant gaps exist.

Resources