Fetch GitHub repository statistics for any owner/repo. Each call costs $0.01 USDC, paid via x402 on Base.
GitHub repo stats ($0.01 USDC/call).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | owner/name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals the cost model ($0.01 USDC/call) and not what the call does, what data it accesses, whether it is read-only, or what side effects or rate limits exist. The pricing note is useful, but the operational behavior remains opaque.
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 extremely short and contains no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, it is so terse that it veers into under-specification rather than effective conciseness, omitting crucial details an agent needs.
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?
Despite the low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete: it never states what 'stats' means, what the response contains, or how success/failure is represented. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the return value, but it does not.
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 schema covers the single parameter fully with the description 'owner/name', and the tool description adds no further detail about how to format the repo string or what combinations are valid. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.
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 says 'GitHub repo stats', which identifies the domain and general resource, but it lacks a specific verb and does not say what kind of stats are returned (stars, forks, contributors, etc.). It is more informative than a bare tautology but still vague about the tool's exact function.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many x402_* siblings, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions. The only added context is the price, which says nothing about appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.