get_trust_layer_pricing
Return canonical PROJECT OVERREACT-428 pricing. Airtable Commercial Pricing Authority remains the source of truth.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
MUJ428 Trust Layer — VERIFY BEFORE ACT
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read-only retrieval and the lack of parameters suggests no side effects, but it does not describe output format, error behavior, or confirm read-only status explicitly. Adequate for a simple getter, but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a useful clarification about the authoritative source. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description clearly states what is returned and identifies the authority. It could add specifics about the pricing content or format, but the tool's simplicity means this is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because there are none to document; no further compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Return' and identifies an exact resource: 'canonical PROJECT OVERREACT-428 pricing'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_service_catalog or get_capabilities by focusing on pricing and authority.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes clear context: this tool returns canonical pricing and identifies Airtable Commercial Pricing Authority as the source of truth, implying this is the go-to for authoritative pricing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.
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.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
There is some overlap among get_service_catalog and get_trust_layer_pricing, since both surface pricing information, and between invoke_trust_service and trust_action, since both use x402 challenges and payment signatures. The descriptions help clarify differences, but an agent could still misselect when trying to choose between the generic bridge and the Trust Reflex preflight.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_capabilities, get_service_catalog, get_trust_layer_pricing, invoke_trust_service, and select_assurance_tier are all imperative and readable. trust_action breaks the pattern slightly, reading more like a noun phrase than an action command, but it is still understandable alongside the others.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is well-scoped for a trust-layer server focused on discovery, pricing, fee calculation, and x402 payment flow. Each tool has a defined role in the set, and the count does not feel too heavy or too thin.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers the main workflow well: capabilities discovery, service catalog, pricing, assurance tier fee calculation, generic service invocation, and preflight trust checks. A minor gap is the lack of a direct tool for checking remaining free quota or payment/verification status, but the core trust and payment lifecycle is represented.