Verify an x402 settlement actually landed on Base mainnet: real JSON-RPC receipt lookup, decoded USDC Transfer events with payer/payee/amount, success-or-reverted status, confirmation count, and a stored verification_id you can re-fetch later as a receipt. $0.01/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_hash | Yes | Transaction hash to verify on Base mainnet | |
| chain_id | No | Chain id (only 8453, Base mainnet, is supported) |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: performs a real on-chain lookup, decodes specific USDC Transfer event fields, returns a verification_id for later re-fetch, and costs $0.01 via x402. It does not detail edge cases like invalid tx_hash or network failures, but covers core behavior well.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence efficiently lists key features in a compact list, and the second states pricing. No redundant text.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, it enumerates the expected return data (receipt lookup, decoded events, status, confirmations, verification_id). It also notes cost. Given the modest parameter set, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide and invoke.
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 already describes both parameters (tx_hash format and chain_id default/limitation) with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the purpose (verifying x402 settlement) but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Verify an x402 settlement actually landed on Base mainnet.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by enumerating unique capabilities: real JSON-RPC receipt lookup, decoded USDC Transfer events, success/reverted status, confirmation count, and stored verification_id.
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?
Provides clear context: it is for verifying an x402 settlement on Base mainnet after the fact. The mention of 'real JSON-RPC receipt lookup' implies a more thorough check than simpler status tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.