Pay $1 USDC on Base to list your x402 endpoint in the public Agent Exchange directory. GET /directory is free. Body: { url, name?, description?, payTo? }. No account. Listing is live immediately and expires in 7 days unless renewed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x_payment | No | Signed x402 payment payload |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and exceeds expectations by disclosing cost ($1 USDC on Base), immediacy, no-account requirement, and the 7-day expiry/renewal — a comprehensive disclosure of financial and temporal side effects. This goes well above and beyond typical read-only annotations, surfacing exactly the kind of behavioral traits an agent needs to know before calling a paid mutation.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the cost and purpose with zero redundancy. Every clause ('No account', 'live immediately', 'expires in 7 days unless renewed') conveys meaningful product information without filler.
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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers cost, network, timing, renewal, and payload shape — a remarkably complete picture. The only gaps are minor ones like error handling and refund policy, which are not explicitly covered. Overall, it's a strong fit for its low complexity profile.
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's single parameter, 'Signed x402 payment payload', is opaque, but the description compensates with the full body contract '{ url, name?, description?, payTo? }', clarifying what the actual payload should contain. This adds high semantic value beyond the schema, which would otherwise leave the agent guessing about the payload structure. Minor type/default details remain implicit, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
Uses a strong imperative verb ('Pay') and a clear resource ('list your x402 endpoint in the public Agent Exchange directory'), making the action and target unmistakable. It also adds a scoping constraint ('public... directory', 'expires in 7 days') that distinguishes it from mere reads. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-named sibling 'post_directory_index', so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.
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 explicitly calls out an alternative: 'GET /directory is free,' clearly signaling that this paid tool is for listing, not reading. It also gives concrete logistics (no account, live immediately, 7-day expiration) that establish when to use it. It just misses a 5 by not naming or excluding alternative tools in the toolset that might overlap (e.g., 'post_directory_index').
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.
Many tools occupy the same conceptual space: web_scrape vs markdown_web_scraper, post_check vs brand_ai_visibility_check, llm_chat_completions vs post_api_v1_chat_completions, chain_transaction_status vs chain_confirmations, and connect_token vs token_security_check + dex_token_data. Descriptions help in places, but for an agent facing 92 tools these near-overlapping endpoints will frequently cause misselection.
Everything is snake_case, but the conventions diverge sharply: get_chain_* and chain_* coexist for the same RPC family, post_* names are HTTP-route artifacts, api_generate reverses noun_verb order, and many names are bare nouns rather than verb_noun. There is no predictable naming pattern an agent can rely on.
At 92 tools this is far beyond the range where an agent can keep the surface coherent, even for a store. The flat tool list mixes products, bundles, aliases, proxies and single-use verticals, so most of the count is noise for any given task. A catalog/search/payment model with fewer exposed tools would fit the storefront purpose better.
The server has impressive breadth and covers key storefront/market workflows: catalog, samples, credits, directory listing, notary, and the task lifecycle. But each domain is shallow: there is no chain transaction broadcast, no task update/cancel/dispute, no AI-visibility history, and many verticals are a single tool with no follow-on operation. The surface is broad but not deeply complete.