Add 500 credits to your account via x402 USDC payment ($5.00 on Base). Use top_up_card instead for credit card payment with volume discounts. Requires api_key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | Your ICME API key |
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 of disclosure. It reveals the cost ($5.00), payment network (Base), payment method (x402 USDC), and required api_key. While it doesn't mention failure handling or reversibility, the disclosure is adequate for a simple top-up operation.
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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, gives an alternative, and states the requirement. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, payment method, cost, alternative, and requirement. It lacks mention of response format or success confirmation, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.
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 has 100% coverage for the sole api_key parameter, describing it as 'Your ICME API key'. The tool description only repeats 'Requires api_key' without adding additional meaning, 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 states a specific action: 'Add 500 credits to your account via x402 USDC payment', which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and method. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool top_up_card by explicitly mentioning the USDC payment method.
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 provides an alternative: 'Use top_up_card instead for credit card payment with volume discounts.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and excludes the main alternative, which is exactly what the dimension asks for.
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.