x402 paid content and Nib Tips with pending holds, refunds, public ledger, pricing, and reputation.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool targets a distinct data domain: content search, rankings, activity ledger, aggregate stats, and share resolution. Overlap is minimal and descriptions clarify boundaries.
All tool names follow the snake_case verb_noun pattern (explore_content, get_leaderboards, etc.), making the set predictable and easy to scan.
Five tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each covers a unique aspect of the platform, so no tool feels redundant or missing.
Covers discovery, reputation, activity, platform totals, and share resolution, which likely satisfies read-only exploration. However, direct lookup of a specific content or creator by ID is not explicitly provided, a minor gap.
Search verified creator content on Nibgate. Returns content metadata (title, type, price, domain, reputation, unlock path). Use to discover what paid/free content exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search term across title, description, tags, site name, and domain. | |
| skip | No | Pagination offset. | |
| sort | No | Sort order. Defaults to trending. | |
| type | No | Content type filter. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a search operation returning content metadata and even names the unlock path field, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, defaults, authentication needs, or any side effects, leaving some gaps.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded. The metadata field list efficiently conveys return value scope without unnecessary elaboration.
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 partially compensates by listing key returned fields, but it omits the result envelope and pagination details. Since all parameters are optional, the word 'Search' might misleadingly imply q is required. Adequate for a basic discovery tool, but not fully complete.
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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description's metadata list (e.g., type, price) loosely relates to filters, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Search'), resource ('verified creator content on Nibgate'), and returning content metadata fields. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_leaderboards and get_platform_stats, which focus on aggregate metrics rather than content discovery.
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?
Provides a clear use case: 'Use to discover what paid/free content exists.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the search/discovery purpose is clearly distinct from the statistical and ledger-oriented sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get ranked creators, sites, or content by reputation score, unlocks, views, and revenue (unlocks + tips + nibshares).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Pagination offset. | |
| type | No | Leaderboard type (default creators). | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only ranking lookup but discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, caching, or what the ranked output actually contains. The only added context is the definition of revenue as 'unlocks + tips + nibshares', which is a useful but narrow detail.
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 front-loaded sentence stating the verb, resource, and metrics with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?
For a zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the metric vocabulary but leaves return shape, pagination behavior, and operational constraints unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 skip, type, and limit are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ranked creators, sites, or content') and enumerates the ranking metrics (reputation score, unlocks, views, revenue). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_platform_stats or explore_content.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_platform_stats or explore_content, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and metric list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the public Nibgate activity ledger: recent views, unlocks, payments, tips (including funded pending holds marked status=held), onchain ratings, and privacy-safe nibshare views/unlocks (titles, wallets, amounts, tx — never the private share link) across verified sites. Held tips are pending and do not count toward completed-tip totals; refunds appear as negative tip entries. Use GET /hub/tips/held?domain={domain} to check pending tips for any exact domain, including external sites. Includes wallet addresses, tx hashes, and receipts where available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Pagination offset. | |
| type | No | Filter by activity type. | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 20). | |
| domain | No | Filter by site domain, e.g. example.nibgate.xyz. |
Get platform-wide Nibgate totals: creators, verified sites, content count, views, unlocks, revenue (unlocks + tips + nibshares), tips, nibshare unlocks/views/revenue, and cumulative protocol fees.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the exact metric families returned (views, unlocks, revenue composition, protocol fees), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, data freshness, or caching.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then enumerates fields. The list is long but each item is a distinct metric, so it earns its space; no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a read-only, no-argument aggregate tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned metrics is the key information an agent needs, and it is present. Missing only secondary context like refresh cadence or auth, which is minor here.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe and the schema cannot be missing anything. Baseline for a 0-param tool.
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 ('Get') and resource ('platform-wide Nibgate totals') and enumerates the metric families returned, so an agent knows exactly what this surfaces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_leaderboards or get_ledger, but the 'platform-wide totals' framing is distinct enough to be usable.
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?
The description never states when to reach for this tool versus the sibling stats/ledger/leaderboard tools, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only weakly implied by the name and the word 'totals'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_ledger1 field changedInput schema / properties / type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "views",
- "unlocks",
- "payments",
- "ratings"
-]New value: +[
+ "views",
+ "unlocks",
+ "payments",
+ "ratings",
+ "tips",
+ "nibshare"
+]explore_contentget_leaderboardsget_ledgerget_platform_statsresolve_shareTrust scores and on-chain payment receipts for x402 services.
Paid x402 tools for merchant intelligence, Base payment readiness, and verifiable web evidence.
x402 MCP with exact and batched payments for recurring wallet, trading, market and web workflows.
Signed citation-integrity reports + retraction-checked evidence packs, paid per call via x402/USDC.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.