Verify an x401 proof and extract JSON from up to 10 public URLs in isolated compute with an idempotent reconciled manifest. $0.02/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| x401_proof | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x401_proof / properties / request_hashAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^sha256:[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions idempotency and cost, but not the mutation safety (did it modify anything?), response format, error handling, or failure behavior. The phrase 'idempotent reconciled manifest' adds some value, but it does not state whether it is read-only or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a tool that involves paid calls.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and key constraints. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized, though the cost detail could be relegated to a note. Overall, it is efficient 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?
Given the complexity (nested items, x401 proof, paid) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical usage details like how to construct x401_proof, what the 'idempotent reconciled manifest' returns, and how to handle failures. An agent would need to inspect the schema deeply, but with 0% schema description coverage, even the schema lacks explanations for many fields.
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 0%, and the description fails to explain any parameter semantics. The items array's structure (url, schema) is not described at the top level, and idempotency_key is only self-explanatory by name. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent with minimal guidance on how to construct valid calls.
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 action (verify, extract), the resource (x401 proof, URLs), and the key constraints (up to 10 public URLs, isolated compute, idempotent manifest). It is specific enough to distinguish from general extraction tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to compare against.
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 usage for batch extraction with an x401 proof, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_extract or batch_url_json. It mentions 'isolated compute' as a context but lacks explicit when-not or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer the differentiator.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.