Make one bounded request to a public HTTP endpoint and report status, x402 payment signals, latency and assertion validity without returning the target body. $0.01/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| method | No | GET | |
| headers | No | Scalar request headers | |
| target_url | Yes | Public http(s) endpoint to test | |
| task_assertions | No | Optional status, body_contains and response_schema assertions |
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, the description discloses key behaviors: the request is bounded, costs $0.01, and the target body is not returned. However, it does not warn about sending user-supplied headers/body to arbitrary endpoints or discuss side effects, prerequisites, or error handling.
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 a single dense sentence that efficiently conveys the verb, resource, output scope, constraint (no body), and cost. Every clause adds value with no redundancy.
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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, return fields, and constraints. It lacks details on assertion validation or method defaults, but the schema partially fills that gap.
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 coverage is 60% with descriptions for target_url, headers, and task_assertions, but method and body lack descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond noting the request is bounded and x402-related, leaving some parameters under-explained.
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 states the tool makes one bounded request to a public HTTP endpoint and reports specific data (status, x402 payment signals, latency, assertion validity). It also explicitly notes the target body is not returned, distinguishing it from siblings like web_extract.
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 implies use for lightweight HTTP endpoint testing with a cost per call, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.
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.
Several tool groups are nearly indistinguishable: wallet_analyze, wallet_spy, and base_wallet_profile all inspect wallets; batch_extract, batch_url_json, and x401_batch_extract all batch-extract URLs; route_task, agentcore_route, and mpp_route all perform routing. An agent would need to read very carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
All names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or namespace pattern: many are noun-only (inference, echo, sentiment, server_time), some are prefixed by domain (bazaar_, base_, x402_, rep_), and action prefixes vary widely (fetch_, compile_, extract_, purchase_, route_). The naming is readable but not predictable across the set.
Seventy tools is an extremely large surface for an agent to choose from, and most appear to be independent paid service wrappers. This exceeds the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold in the calibration and creates an overwhelming selection problem.
Relative to its apparent purpose—exposing x402 payments and Bazaar market data—the coverage is extensive: diagnostics, preflight, settlement verification, receipt lookup, wallet checks, Bazaar analytics, web extraction, and text processing are all represented. The main gaps are operational side-effects like creating or updating a Bazaar listing, but those appear to be outside this read/purchase surface.