Operational context check meant to be called on every run: current UTC time plus the latest x402 Bazaar pulse, with source evidence and whether this wallet has called before. $0.005/call via MPP (Tempo), x402 Solana, or x402 Base; repeat calls welcome.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses cost per call, payment routes, repeat-call friendliness, and the kind of stateful information returned (whether this wallet has called before). It stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects, but 'operational context check' strongly implies a read-only 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?
The description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and contents, then adding pricing and repeat-call guidance. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.
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 a zero-parameter operational check with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains when to call, what information is returned, how much it costs, and which routes can pay. It does not specify the exact output structure, but the listed contents are sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive.
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?
This tool takes zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.
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 names a specific verb ('check') and resource ('operational context') and enumerates concrete contents: current UTC time, latest x402 Bazaar pulse, source evidence, and prior wallet activity. This clearly distinguishes it from similar siblings like server_time and bazaar_pulse by combining those into a single context call.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool ('meant to be called on every run') and even says repeat calls are welcome. It does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the timing guidance is clear and actionable.
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.