x402_contractReturn the canonical SqueezeOS x402 v2 discovery contract. Exact spend terms remain authoritative only in the target resource's fresh PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge.
| 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 mark this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral nuance: the returned contract is canonical but spend terms inside it should not be treated as authoritative, which is exactly the kind of context annotations do not convey.
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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and object; the second adds a critical caveat that prevents misuse. 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 parameterless read-only tool, the description is complete: it names the exact resource, identifies it as the canonical v2 discovery contract, and warns about the authoritative source of spend terms. The remaining details are likely inherent in the contract content itself and are not necessary for correct invocation.
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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The tool takes no inputs, and the description appropriately focuses on what it returns rather than on inputs.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource ('the canonical SqueezeOS x402 v2 discovery contract'), which is unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like x402_evidence and x402_readiness, which concern evidence and readiness rather than the discovery contract itself.
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 important usage context by warning that spend terms are authoritative only in a fresh PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge, not from this contract. It implies when the tool should be used—when you need the canonical discovery contract—but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use 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 have clear boundaries: discover searches, inspect examines one, compare contrasts, recommend interprets natural language, and call executes. Some ambiguity exists between capability_manifest and discover_capabilities for inventory listing, and recommend_capability could be confused with discover_capabilities, but descriptions generally prevent misselection.
All names are lowercase snake_case, and the core capability operations follow a verb_noun pattern. The noun-led capability_manifest, system_status, and x402_* resources deviate from that pattern, and capability names mix singular and plural, but the naming remains readable and internally consistent per subdomain.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and each tool maps to a distinct part of the capability discovery, comparison, payment, and execution workflow. There are no obviously redundant or throwaway tools, so the count feels appropriately scoped.
The set covers the full read-only market-intelligence lifecycle: inventory, search, inspect, compare, recommend, call, payment readiness, contract lookup, and settlement evidence. Operator CRUD is explicitly outside scope, so there are no meaningful dead ends for an agent using this surface.