Validate BNB/B402 payment intent freshness, recipient, amount, deadline, fee cap, public BNB balance, and recent activity without custody or payment relay. $0.01/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | native/BNB or a BEP-20 contract address | |
| chain | Yes | ||
| payer | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| fee_cap | Yes | Maximum network fee in BNB | |
| deadline | Yes | ISO-8601 timestamp or Unix seconds | |
| intent_id | Yes | ||
| recipient | 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?
Despite having no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it performs validation without custody or payment relay, indicating a non-mutating read operation. It also mentions checking public BNB balance and recent activity, which implies on-chain reads, and discloses a cost of $0.01/call. However, it does not explicitly call itself read-only or describe error handling, leaving some ambiguity about side effects beyond 'without custody'.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, lists validation targets, and concludes with a cost note. It is under 30 words with no redundant information, making it highly economical and easy to parse.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of what is validated but omits details about return values, error conditions, and inter-parameter relationships (e.g., chain/asset compatibility). It does not mention prerequisites or limitations beyond 'without custody,' leaving some ambiguity for an agent that needs to handle errors or interpret results.
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?
Schema coverage is only 38% (only asset, fee_cap, and deadline have descriptions). The description lists validation aspects that map to parameters (freshness → deadline, recipient → recipient, amount → amount, fee cap → fee_cap, balance → payer) but does not add detailed semantics for each parameter. It partially compensates by connecting parameters to the validation purpose, but it leaves intent_id and payer (beyond pattern) under-explained, and does not fully cover the gaps in 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 clearly states the tool validates BNB/B402 payment intents, listing specific aspects to validate (freshness, recipient, amount, deadline, fee cap, public BNB balance, recent activity) and explicitly excludes custody and payment relay. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_endpoint_verify and x402_receipt_lookup, which focus on different stages of the x402 lifecycle.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools or specify conditions for selection. The name 'preflight' implies it is used before initiating a payment, but this is not stated, and no 'when-not' or alternative routing advice is given. With no annotations to compensate, the description leaves usage context to inference.
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.
Several tool groups are nearly indistinguishable: wallet_analyze, wallet_spy, and base_wallet_profile all inspect wallets; batch_extract, batch_url_json, and x401_batch_extract all batch-extract URLs; route_task, agentcore_route, and mpp_route all perform routing. An agent would need to read very carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
All names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or namespace pattern: many are noun-only (inference, echo, sentiment, server_time), some are prefixed by domain (bazaar_, base_, x402_, rep_), and action prefixes vary widely (fetch_, compile_, extract_, purchase_, route_). The naming is readable but not predictable across the set.
Seventy tools is an extremely large surface for an agent to choose from, and most appear to be independent paid service wrappers. This exceeds the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold in the calibration and creates an overwhelming selection problem.
Relative to its apparent purpose—exposing x402 payments and Bazaar market data—the coverage is extensive: diagnostics, preflight, settlement verification, receipt lookup, wallet checks, Bazaar analytics, web extraction, and text processing are all represented. The main gaps are operational side-effects like creating or updating a Bazaar listing, but those appear to be outside this read/purchase surface.