Paid $0.05 USDC exact on Base: structured honesty report for this 402 (well-known payTo match, header vs body 402, bytecode snippet hash, accepts[] list). payTo 0x3903F05a17676566958B0a3E0c21E0bd49B66ea0. REST GET /report is the same SKU.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | http(s) URL to inspect. No payment headers are sent to the target. |
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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description starts with 'Paid $0.05 USDC exact on Base', which could be misinterpreted as a cost or payment action by the tool. It does not clarify whether this is a fee, a report detail, or something else, and the schema's 'No payment headers are sent' is helpful but not in the description.
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 a single dense, cryptic sentence packed with technicalities ('well-known payTo match', 'header vs body 402', 'bytecode snippet hash') and odd phrases ('REST GET /report is the same SKU'). It is not concise or well-structured for quick comprehension.
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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description must explain what the report contains and how it behaves. It fails to clarify the report's format, the meaning of 'honesty', or what the user should expect, making it incomplete for correct tool selection.
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 schema description for 'url' is clear and covers 100% of the parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level 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?
The description suggests the tool produces a 'structured honesty report' about a 402 response, listing specific elements like payTo match and bytecode hash. However, it is cryptic and does not clearly state what the tool does with the URL, relying on jargon and unexplained details.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check' or 'headers'. The mention of 'for this 402' implies it is for 402-related inspections, but this is not stated as a clear directive or contrasted with sibling tools.
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.