Lint an x402 Bazaar listing before buying or before publishing your own: 0-100 quality score combining a live probe of the resource (valid 402? description? output schema? category? above the CDP price floor?) with its day-by-day snapshot history (price churn, delisting). $0.01/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | Yes | The listed resource URL to lint |
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. It discloses the tool's behavior: performs a live probe of the resource, evaluates specific criteria (valid 402, description, output schema, category, price floor), reviews day-by-day snapshot history (price churn, delisting), and charges $0.01/call. This is significant context beyond a simple 'lint' statement.
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 front-loaded with the core action and quickly explains the scoring mechanism and cost. It is a single sentence with multiple clauses, but every clause adds necessary information about the tool's function and components, so it earns its length.
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?
Given a single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns ('0-100 quality score'), what inputs it analyzes, and the cost. It does not detail the exact output format, but for a lint tool this is sufficient. The usage context is also provided.
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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'resource' with a description 'The listed resource URL to lint'. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but the schema is already sufficient. Baseline 3 applies because the description does not need to compensate.
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+resource: 'Lint an x402 Bazaar listing', and clarifies the purpose with 'before buying or before publishing your own'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bazaar_market_report or bazaar_delta by focusing on a single listing's quality score.
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 states when to use the tool: 'before buying or before publishing your own'. It implies the tool is for pre-transaction validation, but does not name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context, yet lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.