x402_evidenceRead real settlement evidence recorded by the canonical x402 rail. A challenge or signature alone is never treated as revenue or settlement proof.
| 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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by emphasizing that only 'real' evidence from the canonical rail is returned and by clarifying the trust boundary around challenges and signatures.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful caveat that earns its place by preventing misuse.
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, the description is largely complete: it states what is read, the source, and a key trust qualifier. Since there is no output schema, some detail about the exact shape of the evidence is absent, but this is a minor gap for tool selection and 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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is complete, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description therefore does not need to compensate for any parameter coverage gaps.
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 a specific verb ('Read') and a distinct resource ('real settlement evidence recorded by the canonical x402 rail'). It differentiates this tool from siblings like x402_contract and x402_readiness by focusing on evidence rather than contract state or readiness.
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 clear context for when to use this tool: when settlement evidence is needed from the canonical rail. It also adds an important exclusion by stating that a challenge or signature alone is never proof, which helps an agent avoid using this tool inappropriately or misinterpreting its results.
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.