Retrieve buyer wallets that paid three or more sellers via x402 on the newest day, showing payments, USDC, categories, and sellers to identify active buyers.
Buyer wallets whose x402-settled payments reached three or more sellers on the newest day: the honest signal of an agent at work. Payments, USDC, categories bought, and the sellers paid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | wallets to return, default 12, max 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the qualification rule (settled payments to 3+ distinct sellers on the newest day) and the returned fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the limit param, origin of funds, or edge cases such as partially settled payments.
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 sentences, no filler, with the defining qualification front-loaded before the returned fields. Efficient and readable, though the second sentence is a terse noun list rather than a polished clause.
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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields (payments, USDC, categories bought, sellers paid), which is exactly what the agent needs. It is complete enough to invoke correctly for this low-complexity, single-parameter tool.
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 100% and there is a single optional parameter, so the schema already documents limit's default and max. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, matching the baseline of 3.
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 names a specific resource (buyer wallets) and a precise filter criterion (x402-settled payments reaching three or more sellers on the newest day), so an agent knows exactly what set of records is produced. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not name the sibling it differs from, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like market_today, compare, or seller. The marketing phrase 'the honest signal of an agent at work' gestures at intent but gives the agent no condition for selecting this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.