Return CDP x402 Bazaar candidate resources, schema metadata, and settlement indexing gates.
| 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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states that data is returned, without clarifying if the operation is read-only, whether any side effects occur, or what authentication/rate limits apply. For a no-parameter tool, more transparency about the nature of the response (e.g., caching, latency) would be helpful.
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 a single 12-word sentence that front-loads the core action. It is very concise, though it could optionally add a bit more context without losing brevity, such as noting that this is a readiness check.
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 tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (so return details are covered), the description provides a high-level summary of what is returned (candidate resources, schema metadata, settlement indexing gates). This seems adequate for the agent to understand the tool's purpose, though the exact composition of the output might be better understood from the schema.
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?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since none exist. A score of 4 is appropriate because it adds no confusion but also adds no extra value beyond the schema.
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 specifies the action ('Return') and the resource ('CDP x402 Bazaar candidate resources, schema metadata, and settlement indexing gates'), distinguishing it conceptually from sibling tools like ddg_x402scan_status (scanning status) and ddg_x402_supported_chains (supported chains). However, the terms 'candidate resources' and 'settlement indexing gates' could be clearer for an agent without domain knowledge.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mentioning scenarios where readiness information is needed or exclusions. It merely states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.
