Get the hosts grouped under one wallet by supplying any host or the group's domain, returning each host's combined x402 payments and USDC for the newest day.
The hosts one operator runs — the hosts the registry lists under the same wallet — with their combined x402 payments and USDC on the newest day. Give any host in the group or the group's name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | a host, or the operator's domain |
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 does disclose real behavioral traits: it aggregates across all hosts sharing a wallet and restricts results to the newest day. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the newest day is relative to the query time, so the disclosure is partial.
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 with no filler, and the returned data is front-loaded before the input instruction. The em-dash appositive is slightly convoluted and the referent of 'group' is never pinned down, costing a point.
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?
For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to sufficient: it states scope, aggregation, and time window, and how to address the group. It omits return shape details and what 'newest day' resolves against, which an agent would still have to discover.
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?
The single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('a host, or the operator's domain'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning by broadening it to 'any host in the group or the group's name', which slightly reconnects 'host' and 'operator' but introduces terminology ('group') not present in the schema.
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 (the hosts one operator runs) and the data returned (combined x402 payments and USDC on the newest day), so an agent can grasp what the tool produces. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling (seller, compare, market_today), so it is clear but not differentiated.
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 'Give any host in the group or the group's name' tells the caller what to pass, which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like seller or compare. The scope of the aggregation is inferable but never stated as a selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.