Skip to main content
Glama

bridge_verdicts

Mini's TrollBridge — recently-paid bounties: which bounties actually paid out and how much. TOLLED: $0.02 USDC per call via x402. If you cannot pay, this tool returns the 402 payment instructions instead of data. Optional limit 1-200.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bridge_verdicts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return (1-200). Default 50.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: a paid toll, the exact cost and mechanism (x402), and the failure mode of returning 402 payment instructions instead of data. It omits rate limits, caching/recency window, and response shape, but the payment gate and its fallback are unusually well disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and payload before the payment caveat and the parameter note. No filler, though the trailing limit clause is redundant with the schema.

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?

For a 1-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the toll, the unpaid fallback, and the only parameter. Missing only minor items like pagination ordering or how 'recently-paid' is windowed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (bounds and default 50). The description only restates 'Optional limit 1-200' without adding format or behavior detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and outcome: 'recently-paid bounties: which bounties actually paid out and how much.' An agent can distinguish this (paid verdicts) from open-listing siblings like bridge_bounties. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements, so no explicit differentiation is provided.

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?

Implies usage context via 'recently-paid' and details the payment prerequisite ('$0.02 USDC per call via x402'), but never states when to pick this over bridge_bounties or other sibling bounty tools. The agent must infer the selection condition.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.