Create an ICME Preflight account with x402 USDC payment ($5.00 on Base). Returns an API key and 325 starting credits immediately. Save the api_key — it is shown only once. Use create_account_card instead if paying by credit card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Unique username (1-32 chars, alphanumeric + hyphens/underscores) |
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 compensates well by disclosing the payment requirement ($5.00), immediate credits, and the one-time display of the API key. It falls short of detailing failure modes or post-creation side effects, but covers the most critical behaviors for a creation tool.
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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output/behavior, and alternative. Front-loaded with the primary action and no unnecessary words.
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 create tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, payment, immediate output, a critical caveat (API key shown once), and alternative tools. Without an output schema, it still communicates the return values effectively.
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 provides a complete description for the single parameter (username) with pattern and length constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but given 100% schema coverage, a 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource (ICME Preflight account), including payment method and immediate output. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool create_account_card by directing credit card payments there.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (paying with x402 USDC) and names the alternative (create_account_card) for credit card payments. This is direct and actionable.
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.
Each tool has a distinct role, but the presence of payment-method variants (check_action vs check_action_paid, create_account vs create_account_card, top_up vs top_up_card) introduces minor overlap that is clearly explained. The check tools are differentiated by output detail and purpose, though quick_check and check_action could be confused at a glance.
Names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (check_action, create_account, run_tests), with consistent _paid and _card suffixes for payment variants. Minor deviations like quick_check (adjective_noun) and top_up (phrasal verb) are understandable but break the pattern slightly.
With 14 tools, the set covers the full lifecycle of policy creation, testing, action checking, payment, and proof verification without bloat. Each tool serves a clear purpose within the service's scope.
The primary workflow (create policy, test policy, check actions, verify proofs) is well covered, including multiple payment options. Missing utilities like listing or deleting policies and credit balance checks are minor gaps that don't block the core use case.