Free quote before x402 payment for quick checks, verified checks, proofs, NOT_OBSERVED proofs, changes, or bundles
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| term | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| product | No | ||
| event_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / product / enumPrevious value: -[
- "check",
- "proof",
- "change",
- "bundle"
-]New value: +[
+ "quick",
+ "check",
+ "proof",
+ "not_observed",
+ "change",
+ "bundle"
+]Input schema / properties / source / enumPrevious value: -[
- "federal-register",
- "sec",
- "ofac",
- "fda",
- "usaspending",
- "sam"
-]New value: +[
+ "federal-register",
+ "ofac",
+ "fda",
+ "usaspending"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is free and that it occurs before x402 payment, implying it does not execute the payment. However, it does not state whether the quote is binding, what inputs drive the price, whether any state is changed, or what the response contains.
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 purpose ('Free quote before x402 payment') and lists the covered products without repetition or fluff. Slight improvement could be a clearer verb form and separation of the product list.
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 7 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, and no output schema, this short description is insufficient for an agent to confidently form a valid request. It does not mention the required source/from/to inputs, the output format of a quote, or how multiple product types are requested. The description gives only a high-level scenario, not operational completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds natural-language labels for the product enum ('quick checks', 'verified checks', 'proofs', 'NOT_OBSERVED proofs', 'changes', 'bundles'), giving some meaning to the product parameter. But it does not explain the required `source`, `from`, `to`, or optional `term`, `entity`, `event_type`, which are entirely undocumented.
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 identifies a clear purpose: providing a free quote before x402 payment, and names the product categories covered (quick checks, verified checks, proofs, NOT_OBSERVED proofs, changes, bundles). However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a strong verb ('Free quote' vs 'Gets a quote') and does not differentiate from sibling quote tools like quote, batch_quote, or counterparty_quote.
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 phrase 'before x402 payment' implies the timing/condition for calling the tool: obtain a price before paying. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as batch_quote, counterparty_quote, or quote, and no exclusion statements. It remains at the level of implied usage.
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 tools have heavily overlapping roles: 'quote' and 'machine_quote' both appear to offer free preflight quotes and x402 pricing, while 'coverage' and 'coverage_status' both relate to observation/watch coverage. 'catalog' and 'machine_sources' also blur the line between listing products and listing source adapters. An agent would likely struggle to pick the correct tool without deeper context.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a noun/status pattern. The 'machine_' prefix creates a recognizable subgroup, and quote-related names are clearly grouped. Minor inconsistency exists because some names are action-oriented (batch_quote, catalog) while others are status-oriented (coverage_status, discovery_status), but the overall style is coherent.
Ten tools is a reasonable, well-scoped count for a specialized evidence/quote/status service. Each tool addresses a distinct operational concern: quotes, coverage, status, catalog, sources, and telemetry. The count does not feel inflated or too thin.
The server covers preflight quoting, coverage checks, catalog listing, status, sources, and sales telemetry, but conspicuously lacks any tool for purchasing, paying, or retrieving completed evidence/proofs. The quote descriptions repeatedly reference x402 payment and payable batches, yet there is no obvious order or fulfillment endpoint. This creates a dead end for agents trying to complete a transaction.