Return DDG's public direct-crypto receiving addresses for manual/beta payment routing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It accurately states the tool returns public addresses, but lacks details on safety (e.g., read-only nature) or response characteristics. Adequate but not enriched.
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?
One sentence of 13 words that front-loads the core action and resource. No wasted words; efficient and clear.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is sufficient for a simple lookup tool. Minor room for improvement: could note that these are public addresses or suggest related tools, but overall complete enough.
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, so the description need not add parameter info. Baseline of 4 is appropriate; description adds nothing beyond schema, which is sufficient.
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 the tool returns 'DDG's public direct-crypto receiving addresses', specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings by adding 'for manual/beta payment routing', which hints at a niche use case among payment-related tools.
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 implies the tool is for manual/beta payment routing but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like ddg_quote_payment or ddg_submit_order. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, ranging from status checks to order management to payment processing. Despite the large number, descriptions make them easy to differentiate, with no obvious overlap.
All tools share the 'ddg_' prefix, but naming patterns vary: some use verb_noun (e.g., ddg_list_models) while others use noun_noun (e.g., ddg_agent_status). This mix reduces consistency, though readability remains acceptable.
With 25 tools, the count is at the high end but scales to cover diverse aspects of payable services (status, orders, payments, models, x402). Minor consolidation could be possible, but most tools earn their place.
The tool surface covers core workflows like order lifecycle, payment, and service discovery. Minor gaps (e.g., no cancellation or refund tools) exist but do not severely hinder typical agent interactions.
