Get x402 paid API call activity stats from memoryapi.org nginx logs. Returns top endpoints by paid calls, unique payers, and trend data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Lookback window in hours (1-168, default 24) | |
| service | No | Filter by service name (e.g. clinical, bio, research). Omit for all. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. States source and return content (top endpoints, payers, trends) but omits what sort of response format, authentication needs, or data freshness. Adequate but not fully transparent.
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?
Two concise sentences. First sentence states purpose and source. Second lists return content. No redundancy or unnecessary words.
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?
With only two optional parameters and no output schema, description adequately explains what the tool does and returns. Could detail output format or time granularity, but still provides enough for agent to understand core function.
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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional nuance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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?
Clearly states it gets paid API call activity stats from nginx logs. Specifies verb (Get), resource, and source. Distinguishes from sibling get_x402_ecosystem by focusing on paid calls.
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?
Implies use when needing paid call stats, but no explicit guidance on when to use sibling or when not to use. Lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of x402: one focuses on paid API call activity stats, the other on ecosystem intelligence. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent get_x402_<noun> pattern, using snake_case with a clear verb-noun structure.
With only 2 tools, the server is quite thin, but the domain is narrowly scoped to x402 monitoring. It is borderline acceptable but lacks breadth.
The tools cover basic activity stats and ecosystem overview, but are missing potentially important features like historical trends, detailed service info, or alerting.