Skip to main content
Glama

get_delay_risk_demo

Demo: weather-driven delay-risk score for 5 fixed US locations. Same schema as the full endpoint but cheaper. Locations span clay, wet coast, semi-arid, fast-drain, and silt. [PAID: $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base. First call without payment_signature returns the payment requirements.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
soilNoSoil type override
profileNoActivity profileground_work
locationNoDemo location key: nova | houston | seattle | denver | miaminova
payment_signatureNoOptional x402 payment token. Call the tool WITHOUT this first to receive payment requirements (price, payTo, asset, nonce rules), sign the exact-scheme EIP-712 USDC authorization with your wallet, then retry with this field set to the base64 token.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description explains the paid model and payment flow, but does not cover error cases, rate limits, or result format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, and every sentence adds necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description does not explain the return values, which is needed for a tool that produces a risk score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds value by explaining the payment flow and location soil types beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it is a demo for weather-driven delay-risk scores for 5 fixed US locations, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_delay_risk' by noting it uses the same schema but is cheaper.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for testing or cheaper calls via 'same schema as the full endpoint but cheaper.' It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.