get_x402_quoteCreate a short-lived USDC quote for a requested number of Xcatcher points. Returns the exact live amount and supported Base/Solana payment requirements; it does not move funds. Ask the user before signing or sending any payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| points | Yes | Number of points to buy (1-200000). Live quote amount is authoritative. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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?
The description discloses that the tool 'does not move funds' and instructs to ask the user before payment, adding valuable safety context beyond annotations. It also mentions the quote is short-lived. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false since creating a quote is a stateful but non-payment operation.
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 sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the purpose and return value, followed by a critical user-safety instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 an output schema present, the description covers the core aspects: what the quote is, what it returns (amount and chains), and its non-payment nature. The sibling tool set clarifies the payment flow. Minor gap: no explicit mention of quote expiry duration, but that is a detail likely covered by the output 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?
The schema fully documents the single 'points' parameter with range and an authoritative note about the live quote. The description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.
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 identifies the tool's action: creating a short-lived USDC quote for Xcatcher points. It specifies the returned values (live amount and Base/Solana payment requirements) and distinctly positions itself as a quote-only tool, differentiating from sibling x402_topup which likely handles payment.
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 usage before any payment by stating 'Ask the user before signing or sending any payment.' This provides contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool. The sibling x402_topup is clearly the payment counterpart, making the intended flow evident.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit guidance for when to use accountless vs API-key variants. Even closely related tools like get_task_status and wait_for_task are differentiated by their polling behavior, so an agent can reliably select the correct one.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (create_crawl_task, get_task_status, list_crawl_tasks). The one exception is x402_topup, which places the protocol prefix before the verb, breaking the pattern slightly but still remaining readable.
With 17 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the service supports two distinct payment paths (API-key and accountless x402), each requiring a parallel set of status/result tools. The count feels justified by the scope, with no obvious bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of creating, monitoring, retrieving, and managing crawl tasks, including both payment flows. It includes task creation, status polling, result preview/download, cancellation, listing, balance checks, and payment top-ups, leaving no critical gaps for the stated purpose.