flash_audit_termsReturns the x402 v2 PaymentRequired document for the paid Flash Report: amount in USDC base units, network, asset, payTo and the request schema. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by listing the returned fields and noting 'Free,' but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or the exact format of the PaymentRequired document. With the annotations carrying the main behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, the field list is compact, and 'Free' is a short relevant addition. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the returned content (amount, network, asset, payTo, request schema) and cost. It does not explicitly connect to the buy/collect workflow, but enough information is present to invoke the tool correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. No additional parameter description is needed or provided.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the x402 v2 PaymentRequired document for the paid Flash Report.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and enumerates the document's contents. This is distinct from the sibling tools buy/collect/check because it is explicitly about retrieving payment terms, not performing an action.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives (buy_flash_audit, check_contract_free, collect_flash_audit). It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a selection condition. 'Free' hints at cost but not at when to choose this tool.
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 stage: getting payment terms, initiating a paid audit, collecting its result, or performing a free on-chain check. The overlap between flash_audit_terms and the unpaid response from buy_flash_audit is clearly explained, so an agent can reliably tell them apart.
buy_flash_audit and collect_flash_audit follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but check_contract_free adds a trailing adjective and flash_audit_terms drops the verb entirely. The names are readable and descriptive, yet the conventions are mixed.
Four tools exactly cover the server's narrow scope: one free check, plus the three-step paid audit workflow of terms, buy, and collect. No tool feels redundant and the count is well below any bloat threshold.
The free check is a self-contained operation, and the paid audit flow is complete from fetching terms to buying and polling for the delivered report. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for the stated purpose.