seneschal_paywall_infoReturns the protocol, network, recipient address, and per-call price for every gated endpoint on this data backend. Free to call. Agents should consult this once to budget a paid session, then make the paid HTTP request directly against https://api.seneschal.space/v1/premium/opportunities with an x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header (see https://docs.x402.org).
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states 'Free to call' and details the output fields, implying a read-only informational tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention side-effect-free or authentication requirements, though the free-to-call note covers the main cost concern.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core return data, followed by actionable usage instructions and a docs link. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (protocol, network, recipient, price) and providing practical next steps for making paid requests. It also links to external documentation, making it complete for the tool's simple purpose.
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 the schema is an empty object. Per the baseline for 0 params, this is a 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter details since none exist.
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 it returns protocol, network, recipient address, and per-call price for every gated endpoint. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide actual data or other metadata.
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?
It explicitly says Agents should consult this once to budget a paid session, then make the paid HTTP request directly. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and directs the agent to an alternative action, making the usage workflow unambiguous.
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.
Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.
Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.
At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.
Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.