Your history of paid calls, newest first. For each one it shows which tool you used, the coins and timeframes, how much data came back, and what it cost. Free. Page back through older calls with before, using the cursor the previous page returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Rows per page (1–200, default 50). | |
| before | No | id cursor from a previous page's nextBefore (older rows). |
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: newest-first ordering, the returned fields, the free cost, and the cursor-based pagination mechanism. This goes beyond the structured annotation information.
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 compact sentences, each adding value: what the history contains, the free nature, and how pagination works. Nothing is wasted or redundant with the schema.
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 low-complexity, read-only paginated listing tool with a fully self-documenting schema, the description is sufficient. It states what the output shows, the ordering, the cost, and how to page through older results, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit and before. The description restates the pagination cursor concept but adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly identifies the resource ('your history of paid calls') and the ordering ('newest first'), and it enumerates the useful output fields. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_notifications without needing to inspect their schemas.
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?
It gives clear context on when this tool is relevant: checking paid-call history, with free access and pagination. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly in different domains, so no strong alternative-routing is needed.
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: account/billing tools (balance, usage, notifications, deposit poll) are clearly separated from market-data tools (single phase, batch phases, phase metadata, phase stats). Even get_phase and compose_phases are differentiated by single-coin/single-timeframe vs multi-coin/multi-timeframe, and the descriptions make that boundary explicit.
Most tools follow a get_ or verb_noun pattern (get_balance, get_phase, get_usage, compose_phases, deposit_poll), but 'phase_resolution_stats' breaks the pattern by lacking a verb, and 'compose_phases' vs 'get_phase' uses different verbs for closely related operations. The naming is still readable and predictable overall.
Eight tools is well-scoped for this server: four handle the paid signal-reading workflow and four handle account/billing support around it. There are no redundant or throwaway tools, and each one earns its place.
The server covers the full workflow: discover what phases exist and pricing (list_phase_meta), get current readings (get_phase/compose_phases), interpret them (phase_resolution_stats), and manage the prepaid account (get_balance, get_usage, get_notifications, deposit_poll). No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.