MPP-native catalog-first task routing. Free returns one recommendation; paid returns the top three with prices, payment methods, MCP schemas, health metadata and operator-controlled attribution. $0.01/call via MPP or x402 for the top-three shortlist; free route returns top-1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Natural-language task to route | |
| price_cap | No | ||
| constraints | No | ||
| output_format | No | json | |
| preferred_chain | No |
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 full transparency burden. It discloses the free/paid behavior, output contents (prices, payment methods, MCP schemas, health metadata), and cost ($0.01/call via MPP or x402). However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits.
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 concise, two sentences, and packs essential information (free vs. paid, output details, cost) without redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description explains the main behavior and output features but lacks a full picture: no return schema, no explicit usage context, and no mention of edge cases or prerequisites. Given the tool's relative simplicity, it is partially complete but leaves gaps.
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?
Only the 'task' parameter has a schema description; the rest are undefined. The description provides minimal indirect hints (e.g., price_cap relates to 'prices', preferred_chain may relate to 'MPP-native' or 'x402'), but it does not explicitly explain the meaning or expected input format for parameters like constraints, output_format, or preferred_chain.
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's purpose: 'MPP-native catalog task-first routing' with explicit differentiation between free (one recommendation) and paid (top three with details) results. It also mentions pricing, making the core function unmistakable.
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 explains the free vs. paid behavior and output differences, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., other routing tools). It lacks direct guidance on conditions like 'use when you need pricing or multiple options'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.