x402_changesWhat changed in the x402 ecosystem recently: services that stopped returning a valid challenge, receiver (payTo) changes, price changes, recoveries, newly-seen services. Derived from compounding time-series that cannot be reconstructed after the fact. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Window in days (default 7) |
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key behavioral details: data is derived from compounding time-series that cannot be reconstructed after the fact, and the tool is free. No contradictions with annotations.
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. The first sentence immediately conveys the purpose, the second adds essential context about the data source and cost. Every word 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?
The description explains what changes are included and notes the data limitation, which is sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter. However, with no output schema, some guidance on the return shape (e.g., list of objects with fields) would improve 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?
The schema covers 100% of the single parameter ('days' with description and default). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states what the tool does: it reports recent changes in the x402 ecosystem, listing specific categories like stopped challenges, receiver changes, price changes, etc. This differentiates it from sibling tools such as x402_ecosystem_stats or x402_incidents.
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 provides context on when to use the tool (for recent changes derived from time-series) and notes that data cannot be reconstructed. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to avoid using it.
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.
Most tools target distinct data or actions, but x402_working_services and x402_leaderboard both list services ranked by trust score, and x402_changes vs x402_incidents both cover ecosystem changes. Descriptions help differentiate them, so only minor confusion is possible.
Naming is mixed: some tools use a verb_noun pattern (check_x402_endpoint, mcp_check_server), while most use noun phrases (x402_incidents, pulsefeed_products). The consistent x402_/mcp_/pulsefeed_ prefixes add some structure, but the overall pattern is inconsistent.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range for a domain-specific data/audit server. Each tool covers a distinct facet (endpoint safety, ecosystem stats, MCP audits, product listings), and none feel redundant or out of place.
The set covers endpoint checking, incident feeds, leaderboards, stats, change history, MCP security, and product info. A minor gap is the lack of a per-endpoint full historical record beyond the check verdict, but the available tools serve the core use cases well.