The full x402 service catalog for agents: every purchasable service with its per-call price in AMAN and USD, request format, proven call stats and the 3-step payment flow. The discovery document for machine agents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional keyword/capability filter, e.g. "audit" or "portfolio" |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the contents of the returned catalog—pricing, request format, call stats, and payment flow—and 'discovery document' implies a read-only lookup. However, it never explicitly states that the tool has no side effects, how the result is structured, or what happens when the optional query is omitted.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence enumerating the catalog content and the second framing it as a discovery document. There is minor redundancy between 'for agents' and 'for machine agents', which keeps it from being perfectly tight.
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 simple catalog lookup with one optional parameter, the description covers the core content well. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left to infer the response shape and the read-only nature of the call; a brief statement like 'returns the full catalog list; query is optional' would close that gap.
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 input schema already documents the single optional 'query' parameter with examples like 'audit' and 'portfolio', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how filtering behaves, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 that this tool provides the complete x402 service catalog, including per-call prices in AMAN and USD, request format, call stats, and the payment flow. It is specific and substantive, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like aman_list_services or aman_market, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'discovery document for machine agents' implies this is the starting point for agents to discover purchasable services and their prices. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as aman_list_services or aman_market, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
aman_list_services and aman_service_catalog both describe the same x402 service marketplace with overlapping fields, and aman_market overlaps heavily with aman_price. The detailed descriptions help separate them, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool for the same task.
All tools share the aman_ prefix and use lowercase with underscores, but the pattern is mixed: noun phrases like aman_market, aman_price, and aman_chain_info sit alongside verb_noun tools like aman_get_tx, aman_list_services, and aman_invoke_service. It is readable but not a single consistent convention.
11 tools is well within the typical 3-15 range and the set spans chain info, transactions, tokens, market data, and agent services. However, a couple of near-duplicate tools such as list_services/service_catalog and market/price make the count feel slightly padded.
The core domain is well covered: chain status, transaction lookup, token details, market snapshots, service discovery, and paid agent invocation are all present. Minor gaps like account balance lookups or block-by-height queries are not blockers for the apparent read-only/explorer purpose.